Cases | Young v. State, 12 P.3d 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000) | 2018
The defendant and an accomplice attempted to rob the back room of a steak house, where a gambling operation was taking place. The defendant was convicted of murder, attempted robbery with firearms, and shooting with intent to kill and was sentenced to fifty years in prison and to death. On automatic appeal, the defendant raised many issues, including arguing that the death sentence be vacated because he was not allowed to recall one of the victim witnesses after she said she did not want him to receive the death penalty and because the victim impact testimony exceeded statutory and constitutional boundaries. The court of appeals held that “a victim impact witness’ opinion [that] the defendant should not get the death penalty would . . . be admissible” and so the trial court’s refusal to allow the testimony was error, however the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to re-open. Furthermore, the victim impact statement was, as a whole, within the boundaries of the law even though portions included name-calling; the evidence was not more prejudicial than probative. The judgments and sentences were affirmed.