701 P.2d 1039 (Okla.Crim.App. 1985), F-84-91, Hatch v. State

Docket NºF-84-91.
Citation701 P.2d 1039
Party NameSteven Keith HATCH, a/k/a Steve Lisenbee, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Case DateMay 16, 1985
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oklahoma, Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1039

701 P.2d 1039 (Okla.Crim.App. 1985)

Steven Keith HATCH, a/k/a Steve Lisenbee, Appellant,

v.

The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-84-91.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 16, 1985.

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-

Page 1040

/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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
11 practice notes
  • 294 So.3d 154 (Ala.Crim.App. 2018), CR-14-0482, Deblase v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 16 November 2018
    ...Crim. App. 1996)], 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&#......
  • 804 P.2d 447 (Okla.Crim.App. 1990), F-88-838, Huckaby v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 28 December 1990
    ...enterprise, or where the connection between them is reasonably apparent. Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377, 1382 (Okl.Cr.1983), after remand 701 P.2d 1039 (Okl.Cr.1985), citing Jemison v. State, 633 P.2d 753 (Okl.Cr.1981). We find there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fac......
  • 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), 94-6052, Hatch v. State of Okl.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • 14 June 1995
    ...of death. 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 ......
  • 835 P.2d 880 (Okla.Crim.App. 1992), F-87-393, Hatch v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 10 July 1992
    ...there was compliance with the constitutional mandate set forth in Enmund before the death penalty was imposed. In Hatch v. State, 701 P.2d 1039 (Okl.Cr.1985) (F-84-91) (Hereinafter Hatch II ), this Court affirmed the trial court's finding that after applying the Enmund criteria, the sentenc......
  • Free signup to view additional results
11 cases
  • 294 So.3d 154 (Ala.Crim.App. 2018), CR-14-0482, Deblase v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 16 November 2018
    ...Crim. App. 1996)], 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&#......
  • 804 P.2d 447 (Okla.Crim.App. 1990), F-88-838, Huckaby v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 28 December 1990
    ...enterprise, or where the connection between them is reasonably apparent. Hatch v. State, 662 P.2d 1377, 1382 (Okl.Cr.1983), after remand 701 P.2d 1039 (Okl.Cr.1985), citing Jemison v. State, 633 P.2d 753 (Okl.Cr.1981). We find there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fac......
  • 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), 94-6052, Hatch v. State of Okl.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    • 14 June 1995
    ...of death. 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 ......
  • 835 P.2d 880 (Okla.Crim.App. 1992), F-87-393, Hatch v. State
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Court of Appeals of Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 10 July 1992
    ...there was compliance with the constitutional mandate set forth in Enmund before the death penalty was imposed. In Hatch v. State, 701 P.2d 1039 (Okl.Cr.1985) (F-84-91) (Hereinafter Hatch II ), this Court affirmed the trial court's finding that after applying the Enmund criteria, the sentenc......
  • Free signup to view additional results