Court Opinion

ID: 5151836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 01:59:04.655408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:45.869669
License: Public Domain

¶ 1 This is exactly the kind of action anticipated by the original language in Murphy v. State, 2002 OK CR 32,54 P.3d 556, i.e. "unless the parties enter into a stipulation on this issue at trial or prior to trial". However, due to the group dynamics often present in the writing of appellate opinions, *Page 893 
the language was changed to "unless the issue of mental retardation is resolved prior to trial". Id. at ¶ 32. Had that original language been left in place, the Court would not be facing the issues, arising from confusion created by the less definitive language, that are currently pending. I firmly believe that both defense attorneys and prosecutors will readily recognize those cases where mental retardation is clear and a stipulation should be entered. In those cases raising a question of fact, the issue should and will be determined by a jury, unless waived.