Court Opinion

ID: 9559191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:24:19.706972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:59.134079
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(dissents).
I dissent to this decision because it further erodes the protections against double jeopardy found in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and also the Oklahoma Constitution. In addition, this decision completely disregards the provisions of 21 O.S.1971, § 11. However, it has already been said by others that the majority of this Court has heretofore obliterated the provisions of the foregoing section of the statutes by judicial legislation.
As I view the provisions of 21 O.S.1971, § 701, para. 3, the intent to commit an armed robbery, during which a homicide occurs supplants the “premeditation” otherwise required to prove murder. In that case, all that is required is proof of the armed robbery and proof of the homicide. In that instance, the armed robbery becomes an integral part of the murder charge. Hence, I can see no legal justification- for separating the two crimes for purposes of additional prosecution. In addition, besides the element of jeopardy, there is an element of economics involved. The expense of additional trials, after the maximum penalty has been imposed should be of some concern.
Insofar as I dissented to the majority decisions in Hill v. State, supra, Branch v. Mills, supra, and Stockton v. State, supra, which form the basis for this majority decision, I see' nothing new to cause me to change my position at this time.