Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Birdine v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided February 11, 2004No. F-2002-1226Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUMPKIN, Judge:

concur in part/dissent in part.

¶ 1 I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the judgment and sentence in Count I. I also concur in the Court’s decision to modify the conviction in Count II to Manslaughter in the First Degree, with the sentence of life imprisonment. However, I would not modify the sentences to run concurrently.

¶2 In addition, I appreciate the Court’s recognition the infant victim is a child. As I stated in McCarty v. State, 2002 OK CR 4, 41 P.3d 981, the correct terminology should be either “unborn viable child” or “unborn quick child”. Absent acknowledgment…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McCarty v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API