degree - Admissibility of evidence. Notwithstanding subsection A of Section 701.10 of this title, which requires that the same jury sit in the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial, the following shall apply: 1. Upon any appeal by the defendant where the sentence is of death, the appellate court, if it finds prejudicial error in the sentencing proceeding only, may set aside the sentence of death and remand the case to the trial court in the jurisdiction in which the defendant was originally sentenced. No error in the sentencing proceeding shall result in the reversal of the conviction for a capital felony. When a capital case is remanded after vacation of a death sentence, the prosecutor may: a. move the trial court to impose any sentence authorized by law at the time of the commission of the crime, which the trial court shall impose after a non-jury sentencing proceeding, provided, the original sentencing proceeding was conducted before the court or the original sentencing proceeding was conducted before a jury and both the defendant and the state waive jury sentencing after remand; or b. move the trial court to impanel a new sentencing jury who shall determine the sentence of the defendant, which may be any sentence authorized by law at the time of the commission of the crime, provided, the original sentencing proceeding was conducted before a jury; 2. If the prosecutor elects to utilize the procedure provided in paragraph b of subsection 1 of this section, the trial court shall impanel a new jury for the purpose of conducting new sentencing proceedings; 3. Resentencing proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of Sections 701.10, 701.11 and 701.12 of this title; 4. All exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing shall be admissible in the new sentencing proceeding; additional relevant evidence may be admitted including testimony of witnesses who testified at the previous trial; 5. The provisions of this section are procedural and shall apply retroactively to any defendant sentenced to death; 6. This section shall not be construed to amend the provisions of Section 701.10 of this title, requiring the same jury to sit in both the guilt and sentencing phases of the original trial. Laws 1989, c. 365, § 3, emerg. eff. June 3, 1989; Laws 1993, c. 325, § 12, emerg. eff. June 7, 1993.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case:
Humphreys v. State, 947 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Humphreys v. State, 947 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 14× “Pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, a jury was impaneled and a new sentencing proceeding was conducted before the Honorable Franklin D.”
Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “" However, the Court's predetermination in this case that "if the jurors determine Lambert is mentally retarded, .”
Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13. Section 701.10a was amended in 1993, to clearly establish a defendant's right to jury sentencing in any resentencing, as long as the original sentencing was by a jury.”
Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “This ruling ignores the changes in 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, dealing with remanding for sentencing.”
Littlejohn v. State, 2004 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “[3] Pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 701.10a, a new jury was impaneled for the resentencing trial which was held before the Honorable Virgil C.”
Stout v. State, 817 P.2d 737 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Under 21 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 701.10a, the district attorney will have the discretion to seek a sentence of death, life, or life without parole.”
Cheatham v. State, 900 P.2d 414 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “At Proposition III, Appellant argues that he is entitled to have his sentence reversed and remanded, notwithstanding the Oklahoma Legislature's enactment of 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, which restricts sentencing options in capital cases to "any sentence authorized by law at…”
Mitchell v. State, 2006 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “[14] ¶ 5 Pursuant to 21 O.S.2001, § 701.10a, a new jury was impaneled for the resentencing trial, which was held before the Honorable Susan P.”
Fitzgerald v. State, 2002 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “” 2 Pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp.2000, § 701.10a, a new jury was impaneled and new sentencing hearing was conducted before the Honorable J.”
Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “The new sentencing proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 701.10a(1), with the trial court giving proper consideration to the possible alternative punishments of life imprisonment and life imprisonment without parole.”
Hain v. State, 919 P.2d 1130 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The admissibility of evidence in a resentencing trial is governed by 21 O.S.Supp.1993 § 701.10a(4). That section provides that all exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing shall be admissible in the new…”
Bench v. State, 2018 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“Although wholly unnecessary, defense counsel explicitly moved to introduce all of the defense's evidence from the first stage of the trial into evidence in the second stage of the trial.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(1) — 3 cases
Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
“The new sentencing proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 701.10a(1), with the trial court giving proper consideration to the possible alternative punishments of life imprisonment and life imprisonment without parole.”
Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“This ruling ignores the changes in 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, dealing with remanding for sentencing.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(1)(a) — 2 cases
Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“See 21 O.S.2001, § 701.13. Section 701.10a was amended in 1993, to clearly establish a defendant's right to jury sentencing in any resentencing, as long as the original sentencing was by a jury.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(1)(b) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(4) — 6 cases
Littlejohn v. State, 2004 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
“[3] Pursuant to 21 O.S.Supp. 2000, § 701.10a, a new jury was impaneled for the resentencing trial which was held before the Honorable Virgil C.”
Hain v. State, 919 P.2d 1130 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
“The admissibility of evidence in a resentencing trial is governed by 21 O.S.Supp.1993 § 701.10a(4). That section provides that all exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing shall be admissible in the new…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(5) — 2 cases
Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“This ruling ignores the changes in 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, dealing with remanding for sentencing.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.10a(l) — 2 cases
Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“This ruling ignores the changes in 21 O.S.Supp. 1993, § 701.10a, dealing with remanding for sentencing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.