Court Opinion

ID: 9797463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:21:41.800224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:11.858618
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, J.,
DISSENTING.
T1 We remanded this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the is*462sue of mental retardation. We specifically directed the trial court to determine whether Murphy had raised enough evidence to create a fact question on the issue of whether he was mentally retarded, as defined in our opinion on remand. That definition contained three categories: (1) sub-average intellectual functioning which significantly limits a person's ability to understand and process information, to communicate, to learn from experience or mistakes, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses and to understand others' reactions; (2) manifestation before age 18; and (3) significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of nine enumerated skill areas; in addition, a person must have an intelligence quotient of seventy or below.1 I agree with the majority that Murphy must make a prima facie showing of mental retardation before this becomes a jury issue. However, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that a defendant must present prima facie evidence of all three categories of mental retardation in an evi-dentiary hearing. I believe that, where a defendant makes a prima facie case that he is retarded in even one category using the Murphy definition, a jury ought to determine the issue. The majority here admits that Murphy presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact question regarding the see-ond Murphy category. I would remand the case for a jury determination of the issue of mental retardation.2 I dissent.

. Murphy v. State, 2002 OK CR 32, 54 P.3d 556, 566-67.

. Throughout, the majority refers to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review for the trial court's findings. As the Murphy definition requires a defendant to make a prima facie case for mental retardation only by a preponderance of the evidence, the "clearly erroneous" standard would not be appropriate. I think these cases require a de novo review, and the majority discussion of the findings suggests that it performed a de novo review in reaching its conclusion.