Cases | Turrentine v. State, 965 P.2d 955 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) | 2018
The defendant believed his girlfriend was seeing other men and that his sister knew about his girlfriend’s affairs, so he shot his sister, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend’s two children; all four of them died. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On automatic appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that the jury’s consideration of the victims’ families’ characterizations and opinions about the crime was improper and unconstitutional and that he was denied a reasonable sentencing as the jury heard victim impact evidence before the State concluded its evidence in aggravation and as the jury received no instructions as to the legal effect they were to give to such evidence. The court of appeals held that the characterizations of the crime were properly admitted but that the comment describing the murders as brutal was not within the specified evidence allowed and therefore was improperly admitted. Although that one statement was improperly admitted, the court found that, as it was a single, isolated remark, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that a jury instruction and the requirements that victim impact evidence not be given until the trial court had determined that evidence of an aggravator was present did not apply to the defendant’s trial because it occurred prior to the case setting that precedent. The judgments and sentences were affirmed.