Cases | Malone v. State, 168 P.3d 185 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) | 2018
After murdering an Oklahoma Highway Patrol officer, the defendant was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death. On appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that: 1) victim impact evidence is unconstitutional; 2) allowing victim impact witnesses to recommend a punishment violated the Eighth Amendment; 3) the sentencing recommendation delivered by the victim’s wife exceeded the scope of permissible victim impact testimony and was highly prejudicial; 4) testimony quoting birthday cards from the victim to his mother was improper and inadmissible hearsay; and 5) the victim impact testimony was, overall, too long and emotional. The court of appeals rejected the defendant’s first argument, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Payne v. Tennessee. The court also rejected the defendant’s second argument as previously-settled and noted that it had not been preserved on appeal. The court also held that the trial court committed plain error in allowing the victim’s wife to offer an extended and unduly prejudicial sentencing recommendation in which she literally begged the jury to sentence the defendant to death and invoked a religious obligation in the context of the capital murder case. The court also held that evidence of letters and birthday cards from the victim should not have been allowed because such information is not relevant to the defendant’s sentencing; the trial court committed plain error when it allowed such testimony. Finally, the court of appeals held that the overall victim impact evidence presented at trial was too long and too emotional; although the court declined to adopt a specific rule for length and content, it noted that victim impact testimony is meant to be only a “quick glimpse” into the life that has been extinguished. The conviction was affirmed, but the death sentence was reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.