Court Opinion

ID: 9531591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:13:16.892769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:32.129471
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurring in result.
I disagree with the majority in the treatment of State’s Exhibit Number 25. In footnote 2, the majority concedes that arguably medical procedures exaggerated the features of the victim’s face. In addition, the exhibit depicts life saving medical equipment in the form of large tubes inserted in the victim’s mouth. This contributed to the prejudicial value of the photograph. Since other pictures demonstrated the victims injuries, I believe Exhibit 25 should not have been admitted, and the testimony of the medical personnel does not cure the error.
However, I find that in light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial the error was not determinative of the outcome and further find that is not so prejudicial as to cause reversal.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

Victor Wayne Hooks was tried by a jury and convicted of First Degree Malice Aforethought Murder (Count I) and First Degree Manslaughter (Count II) in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-88-5642, before the Honorable Jack R. Parr, District Judge. The jury found the existence of three aggravating circumstances and the judge, in accordance with the jury’s recommendation, sentenced Hooks to death on Count I and five hundred years imprisonment on Count II.
By published opinion handed down on September 6, 1993, this Court affirmed Hooks’ convictions on both counts. Hooks is now before the Court on a Petition for Rehearing, which is governed by Rule 3.14, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S.Supp. 1993, Ch. 18, App. According to Rule 3.14, a Petition for Rehearing shall not be filed as a matter of course, but only for two reasons:
(1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney *1285of record has been overlooked by the Court, or
(2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.
Hooks raises two propositions in his Petition for Rehearing. Neither meets the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14. Accordingly, these propositions will not be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Petition for Rehearing filed herein be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, Vice Presiding Judge
/s/James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, Judge
/s/Charles S. Chapel CHARLES S. CHAPEL, Judge /s/Reta M. Strubhar
RETA M. STRUBHAR, Judge