Court Opinion

ID: 9598221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:06:38.662394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:51.882498
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
¶ 1 I concur in affirming the conviction in this case. However, I dissent to the decision affirming the sentence. There was never much, if any, doubt about Taylor’s guilt. His *1241only chance was to persuade the jury to sentence him to something less than death. As it turned out, he had no chance because his lawyer failed him. His counsel failed to make an opening statement and essentially failed to present any evidence despite the fact that several individuals on the witness list were present and willing to testify in mitigation. In a case where the only reasonable strategy was to attempt to convince the jury to spare Taylor’s life, the jury heard nothing to offset the State’s evidence. This failure was compounded by the trial court’s refusal to answer the jury’s question about the meaning of life without parole.1 The jury heard no reason to spare Taylor’s life and understandably wanted to make sure he would not be out on the street. I would remand the case for a new sentencing hearing.

. I have consistently stated that the jury should be informed of the meaning of life without parole. See, e.g., Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41, 963 P.2d 583, 605 n. 100; Mollett v. State, 1997 OK CR 28, 939 P.2d 1, 15 (Chapel, J., concurring in result); Johnson v. State, 1996 OK CR 36, 928 P.2d 309, 321(Chapel, J., specially concurring); Smallwood v. State, 1995 OK CR 60, 907 P.2d 217, 239, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 980, 117 S.Ct. 431, 136 L.Ed.2d 330 (1996) (Chapel, J., specially concurring); McGregor, 885 P.2d at 1383 n. 59(concurring by reason of stare decisis). This is a perfect example of a case where a properly informed jury might have imposed life without parole rather than the death penalty.