Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State, Ex Rel. Lane v. Bass

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided March 9, 2004No. PR-2003-946Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LUMPKIN, J.;:

Concur in Part/Dissent in Part.

¶ 1 I concur in the Court's decision to grant the Writ of Prohibition in this case. However, I must dissent to the Court creating a procedure that not only further delays a trial on the merits in a capital murder case, but is totally unnecessary.

¶ 2 While I recognize the Court is vested with the authority to create procedures of this type, I believe the first question to ask is whether the procedure is necessary. This Court has already developed a procedure through its decisions in Murphy v. State, 2002 OK CR 32, 54 P.3d 556; Lambert v. State, 2003…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Murphy v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002
  2. Matthews v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002
  3. Lambert v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2003
  4. Hardin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1982
  5. Sy Chong Nguyen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API