Hatch v. State, F-84-91
| Decision Date | 16 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. F-84-91,F-84-91 |
| Citation | 701 P.2d 1039 |
| Parties | Steven Keith HATCH, a/k/a Steve Lisenbee, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
ORDER AFFIRMING SENTENCES
Steven Keith Hatch, a/k/a Steven Lisenbee, appellant, was convicted of two counts of Murder in the First Degree in Canadian County District Court. He received a sentence of death by lethal injection for each conviction. This Court affirmed his convictions but remanded his case to the district court in order that his sentences of death could be reviewed in light of Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), which forbids imposition of the death penalty against certain nontriggermen.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court again imposed a sentence of death by lethal injection for each count. Appellant contends that the court was without authority to do so, and that he was denied due process of law and equal protection of the law as a result. His argument is founded upon our opinions in Eddings v. State, 688 P.2d 342 (Okl.Cr.1984) and Johnson v. State, 665 P.2d 815 (Okl.Cr.1982). In each of these cases, we construed 21 O.S.1981, § 701.13 as disallowing this Court to do anything other than modify a sentence of death to life imprisonment when prejudicial error occurs in the sentencing stage of a capital case.
We find Johnson and Eddings and the cases which rely upon their authority distinguishable from the present case. In each of those cases, error was found in the sentencing stage. In the present case, we simply deemed it necessary that the "sentencer give greater attention to the evidence concerning appellant Hatch's individual participation and intent in the events which culminated in the murder- /shootings." Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377, 1383 (Okl.Cr.1983). We concluded this from our reading of Enmund, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that when imposing the death penalty against a nontriggerman, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require the sentencer to focus on the individual culpability of one who has been convicted of felony murder. We did not perceive error by the trial court in sentencing appellant, but felt a more thorough study of the evidence on this point was called for to ensure compliance with the constitutional mandate as expounded in Enmund. Therefore, the rule of Johnson and Eddings is inapplicable.
We further find that the sentences of death are supported by the evidence. Presented at the evidentiary hearing was the evidence of the crimes as we previously detailed in Ake v. State, 663 P.2d 1 (Okl.Cr.1983), as well as the testimony of Virginia Keith Sorenson. She related two conversations between appellant and codefendant Ake which occurred while she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State
...instructed, 4 that individualized consideration of appellant's culpability supports the jury's verdict of death. See Hatch v. State, 701 P.2d 1039, 1040 (Okla.Crim.App.1985). We cannot say that appellant had no intention to kill or never contemplated that life would be taken, because he too......
-
Hatch v. State of Okl.
...The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected petitioner's arguments and affirmed his death sentences. Hatch v. Oklahoma, 701 P.2d 1039, 1040 (Okla.Crim.App.1985) (Hatch II ). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Hatch v. Oklahoma, 474 U.S. 1073, 106 S.Ct. 834, 88 L.Ed.2d 80......
-
Gilson v. State
...killer, see Wisdom, 918 P.2d at 395, we find it does apply in a case where the defendant was not the actual killer. See Hatch v. State, 701 P.2d 1039, 1040 (Okl.Cr.1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1073, 106 S.Ct. 834, 88 L.Ed.2d 805 (1986). In as much as one of the underlying theories of this c......
-
Deblase v. State
...[384,] 395 [ (Ok. Crim. App. 1996) ], we find it does apply in a case where the defendant was not the actual killer. SeeHatch v. State, 701 P.2d 1039, 1040 (Okl. Cr. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1073, 106 S.Ct. 834, 88 L.Ed.2d 805 (1986). In as much as one of the underlying theories of thi......