Court Opinion

ID: 9547539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:48:37.020543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:50.461327
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur that this case must be reversed, agreeing, as I do, that the hearsay evidence complained of was improperly admitted at both stages of trial. However, I am also compelled to state my belief that, were it not for the above-mentioned errors, this Court would be required to reverse and remand the case for failure to supply an adequate record for appellate review.
In this case, we are without record of the jury selection, opening statement of the prosecutor, numerous bench conferences, and closing arguments in both stages. The record before us does not indicate why these proceedings were not stenographically reported. It is true that in all non-capital cases, it falls upon the appellant to see that the record is complete. Henderson v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 342, 246 P.2d 393, 414 (1952). I would not depart from that general rule. However, in capi*566tal cases, our Legislature has mandated this Court review the following:
1. Whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor;
2. Whether the evidence supports the jury’s or judge’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance as enumerated in this act; and,
3. Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.
21 O.S.1981, § 701.13.
By enacting this mandatory review, the Legislature obviously sought an additional assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 109, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2937, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (noting that a similar mandatory review scheme in the Georgia statute guards against arbitrariness). However, we cannot perform this mandatory function if the record, as here, is incomplete.
I believe there should be a judicial rule1 in this State that, in order to effectuate this Court’s mandatory obligation under 21 O.S.1981, § 701.13, a complete stenographic record must be taken in all capital proceedings, and I would so hold.

. At oral argument in this case, the State contended that it would be outside the authority of this Court to fashion such a rule. To the contrary, fashioning such a rule “does not exceed our jurisdiction, but is in aid of our jurisdiction." Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771, 776 (Okl.Cr.1979) (Opinion on rehearing) 22 O.S.1981, § 1051(b).