Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Tison v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2001In 1987, Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 157-158 , 107 S.Ct. 1676, 1688 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127, 134 (1987), extended the Enmund rule to authorize the death penalty also for a felony-murder defendant who did not personally kill but "who was a major participant in a felony and exhibited reckless indifference to human life." Tison held: "Only a small minority of those jurisdictions imposing capital punishment for felony murder have rejected the possibility of a capital sentence absent an intent to kill, and we do not find this minority position constitutionally required." Tison, 481 U.S. at 158 , 107 S 2001In 1987, Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 157-158 , 107 S.Ct. 1676, 1688 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127, 134 (1987), extended the Enmund rule to authorize the death penalty also for a felony-murder defendant who did not personally kill but "who was a major participant in a felony and exhibited reckless indifference to human life." Tison held: "Only a small minority of those jurisdictions imposing capital punishment for felony murder have rejected the possibility of a capital sentence absent an intent to kill, and we do not find this minority position constitutionally required." Tison, 481 U.S. at 158 , 107 S | 2 | 3 |
Powell v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru 2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru | 1 | 2 |
Cabana v. Bullockgreen2 sentences2000In fact, the Enmund rule (providing that one who actually kills, or attempts to kill, or intends that a killing take place or lethal force be employed, could be sentenced to death) was reiterated at least fourteen times in the majority opinion in Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. at 378, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386 (twice), 387, 389, 390 (thrice), 391, 392, 106 S.Ct. at 693, 695 , (twice), 696 (twice), 697 (thrice), 698, 699 (thrice), 699-700, 700, 88 L.Ed.2d at 711, 714 (twice), 715, 716 (thrice), 717, 718, 719 (thrice), 720 (twice). 2000In fact, the Enmund rule (providing that one who actually kills, or attempts to kill, or intends that a killing take place or lethal force be employed, could be sentenced to death) was reiterated at least fourteen times in the majority opinion in Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. at 378, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386 (twice), 387, 389, 390 (thrice), 391, 392, 106 S.Ct. at 693, 695 , (twice), 696 (twice), 697 (thrice), 698, 699 (thrice), 699-700, 700, 88 L.Ed.2d at 711, 714 (twice), 715, 716 (thrice), 717, 718, 719 (thrice), 720 (twice). | 1 | 1 |
Enmund v. Floridagreen2 sentences1995See also Proposition III, supra. Powell also argues the absence of a specific finding of his intent to kill in the jury's general verdict violates the distinction between intentional murder and unintentional murder as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987) and Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). [12] He argues because he did not receive an Enmund instruction, his death sentence cannot stand because the jury may have given him death even though they believed the killing was c 1995See also Proposition III, supra. Powell also argues the absence of a specific finding of his intent to kill in the jury's general verdict violates the distinction between intentional murder and unintentional murder as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 , 107 S.Ct. 1676 , 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987) and Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 , 102 S.Ct. 3368 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). [12] He argues because he did not receive an Enmund instruction, his death sentence cannot stand because the jury may have given him death even though they believed the killing was c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Loving v. United States
green
2 sentences2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru 2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Crawford v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru 2001In Crawford v. State, 1992 OK CR 62, ¶ 65 , 840 P.2d 627, 640 , we held that a jury need not specify whether the first degree murder conviction was based on malice aforethought or "during the commission of a felony," and need not make a finding of the defendant's intent to kill, "especially in light of the fact that [Crawford] acted alone in the commission of this offense." The Crawford interpretation of Enmund and Tison was unanimously cited with approval by this Court in Powell v. State, 1995 OK CR 37 , ¶ 38, 906 P.2d 765, 776 , where we held that "Powell was not entitled to an Enmund instru | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Douglas v. State
green
2 sentences2000Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, ¶ 64 , 951 P.2d 651, 671 . 2000Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, ¶ 64 , 951 P.2d 651, 671 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1995To successfully prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Powell must satisfy the two-prong test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 1995To successfully prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Powell must satisfy the two-prong test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Stiles v. State
green
1 sentence1994Further, this Court held in Stiles v. State, 829 P.2d 984 (Okl.Cr.1992), that the requested Enmund instruction was properly *65 withheld because the facts of the case did not warrant it. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1994Finally, in Moore v. State, 736 P.2d 161 (Okl.Cr.1987), the jury instruction held the jury to an even stricter standard than Enmund requiring them to find a higher degree of culpability before they could assess the death penalty. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hatch v. State
green
2 sentences1994This Court was called to consider a similar’ argument in Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377 (Okl.Cr.1983), where the defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder based on the felony murder rule. 1994This Court was called to consider a similar’ argument in Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377 (Okl.Cr.1983), where the defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder based on the felony murder rule. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.