Court Opinion

ID: 9614142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:22:53.128601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:34.176724
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
It continues to be the opinion of this writer that the ruling in Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), “must necessarily be extended to include any expert which is ‘necessary for an adequate defense.’ ” Ake v. State, 778 P.2d 460, 464 n. 1 (Okl.Cr.1989). Before a defendant is entitled to such assistance, however, he must first make the requisite showing of need. Id. In the present case, I agree with the majority that “[ajppellant failed to meet his burden of establishing the need for experts by neglecting to ex*416plain the undeveloped assertions contained in his motion.” However, I cannot agree with the majority’s additional assertion that cross-examination of the State’s expert witnesses cures any error caused by the lack of expert witnesses for the defense.
In holding that Ake does not extend to experts other than psychiatrists, a majority of this Court in Plunkett v. State, 719 P.2d 834 (Okl.Cr.1986), explained that without such assistance “the risk of an inaccurate resolution of sanity issues is extremely high.” Id. at 839. The majority then asserted:
Such a risk in other areas of scientific evidence is not necessarily present because the scientific expert is often able to explain to the jury how a conclusion was reached, the defense counsel can attack that conclusion, and the jury can decide whether the conclusion has a sound basis.
Id. This general observation was transformed into a much more broad ruling in Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359 (Okl.Cr.1988), where the same majority stated that “scientific evidence is ordinarily not vulnerable to inaccurate resolution and in itself does not ordinarily call for a defense expert.” Id. at 364.
Although I do not find the general remarks announced in Plunkett to be objectionable per se, it is my opinion that the holding in Rojem, relied upon by the majority herein, is over broad and subject to erroneous application. To illustrate this point, one need look no further than the trial of appellant’s co-defendant. In Fritz v. State, 811 P.2d 1353 (Okl.Cr.1991), the State’s forensic chemistry expert testified that twelve (12) hairs found at the crime scene were microscopically consistent with hairs from Fritz. Id. at 1362. However, the defense’s hair expert examined the same evidence and concluded that only two (2) hairs were consistent with those from Fritz. Id. at 1362. Furthermore, regardless of the knowledge of a defense attorney on a particular scientific subject or the thoroughness of his cross-examination of a State’s expert, such cannot reasonably be said to replace the testimony from a defense witness who is deemed to be an expert in his field.
I also wish to address the majority’s declaration that “Pictures of the murder victim are always probative in establishing the corpus delicti of the crime.” Majority at 400. While I agree, it should be stressed that before such photographs may be admitted into evidence, the proponent must demonstrate that they are relevant and that their probative value substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect. See Majority at 400.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my view 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), that the “continuing threat” aggravating circumstance should be more clearly defined, see Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117, 1126-27, 62 OBJ 151, 156-57 (Okl.Cr.1991) (Parks, P.J., specially concurring), and that the “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague both on its face and as applied, see Foster v. State, 779 P.2d 591, 594 (Okl.Cr.1989) (Parks, P.J., specially concurring). As a matter of stare decisis, however, I must yield to the majority view regarding these issues.