Court Opinion

ID: 9633452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:48:09.070037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:35.810814
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
Despite the fact that appellant neither objected to the second stage instructions nor submitted his own requested instructions, it continues to be the opinion of this writer that the so-called “anti-sympathy” instruction in the second stage is unnecessary and confusing to the jury where mitigating evidence has been introduced. See Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 579 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., concurring in part/dissenting in part). Furthermore, while this writer is “not presently prepared to abandon my opinion ■ regarding the validity of the ‘continuing threat’ aggravating circumstance,” I believe that more definitive guidance is needed. Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117, 1126 (Okl.Cr.1991) (Parks, P.J., specially concurring). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I must yield to the majority view regarding these issues.