Court Opinion

ID: 9576905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:29:57.351192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:32.757787
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur in affirming the judgment in this case, but dissent to affirming the sentence. The victim impact evidence offered in this case consisted of a statement a sister of the deceased gave on behalf of herself and her younger sister and a statement prepared by her mother. The mother and the younger sister did not testify. Their statements are authorized by title 22, section 984, which in my opinion only authorizes this type of statement to be given to the judge at the time formal sentence is pronounced. It is not authorized to be given to the jury. In addition, the statements of the mother and younger sister were not subject to cross-examination. See, my special vote in Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754, 773 (Okl.Cr.1996).