Thompson vs oklahoma court case. THOMPSON v. STATE :: 1988 :: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions :: Oklahoma Case Law :: Oklahoma Law :: US Law :: Justia 2019-02-21

Thompson vs oklahoma court case Rating: 4,7/10 729 reviews

THOMPSON v. STATE :: 1988 :: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions :: Oklahoma Case Law :: Oklahoma Law :: US Law :: Justia

thompson vs oklahoma court case

He describes the sex as rough, causing carpet burns on Ms. This Court has held that it is not even error to refuse to give such an instruction if it is requested. However, in Michigan, that 15-year-old may not be executed—because the State has abolished the death penalty and, in Oregon, that 15-year-old may not be executed—because the State has expressly set a minimum age of 18 for executions—but, in Virginia, that 15-year-old may be executed—because the State has a death penalty and has not expressly addressed the issue of minimum age for execution. §§ 2C:34-2, 2C:34-3 West 1982 and Supp. He wrote poems and a Christian comic book. Thompson's picture in a college yearbook and in a photo lineup. Having reviewed the record for fundamental error, we conclude that none of the comments warrant reversal or modification.

Next

THOMPSON v. STATE :: 1986 :: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions :: Oklahoma Case Law :: Oklahoma Law :: US Law :: Justia

thompson vs oklahoma court case

She stopped first at Hardee's restaurant, where she was an employee, for a soda, then walked to the convenience store. Thompson does not inform us about Rick Gaumond's availability or lack thereof in 1991 and 1992, or what helpful and admissible information he had. Supreme Court case, Donald P. The dissent is mistaken both when it reads into my discussion a contrary implication and when it suggests that there are ulterior reasons behind the implication it has incorrectly drawn. § 61-5-105 1987 15-year-olds may drive without parental consent if they pass a driver's education course 20 See Appendix E, infra. The Court of Criminal Appeals also considered the claims on their merits and on May 29, 1996, it affirmed the denial of relief. It was too dark for the Browns to identify any of the men.

Next

THOMPSON v. STATE :: 1988 :: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions :: Oklahoma Case Law :: Oklahoma Law :: US Law :: Justia

thompson vs oklahoma court case

Appellant's sentence is the only one this Court is empowered to assess in the circumstances. All that would be needed is uncertainty regarding the existence of a national consensus, whereupon various protective requirements could be imposed, even to the point of specifying the process of legislation. It is also supported by the familiar principle—applied in different ways in different contexts—according to which we should avoid unnecessary, or unnecessarily broad, constitutional adjudication. To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must show defective performance and prejudice. Thus, a minor is not eligible to vote, to sit on a jury, to marry without parental consent, or to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. Furthermore, if sensitivity about what his parents would think caused him to be untruthful with Pamela Hoffman in her interview at the home, there is no reason to believe he would have been less reticent in front of his parents and, essentially the whole town, in court. The state presented the testimony of five witnesses: one of the women who saw Ms.

Next

THOMPSON v. STATE :: 1988 :: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions :: Oklahoma Case Law :: Oklahoma Law :: US Law :: Justia

thompson vs oklahoma court case

When a legislature provides for some 15-year-olds to be processed through the adult criminal justice system, and capital punishment is available for adults in that jurisdiction, the death penalty becomes at least theoretically applicable to such defendants. Codified Laws § 32-12-6 1984 Wyo. For the same reason, there is no significance to the concurrence's observation that the Federal Government has by Treaty agreed to a minimum death penalty age in certain very limited circumstances. § 2381 treason ; 49 U. When he attempted to escape and had a chance to call out for help, he was thrown into the trunk of a car.

Next

Judicial View > Federal Cases > Education > Thompson v. Oklahoma

thompson vs oklahoma court case

He got sentenced to life inprisonment. If, therefore, we accept the premise that some offenders are simply too young to be put to death, it is reasonable to put this group of statutes to one side because they do not focus on the question of where the chronological age line should be drawn. Our cases sensibly suggest that constitutional rules relating to the maturity of minors must be drawn with an eye to the decision for which the maturity is relevant. Counsel asks this court to remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. He was sentenced to death by the jury. One that has been able to break the cycle--Bev My mother is Charles Keene's oldest sister. Nothing in the Bryan affidavit suggests he was willing at that time to become disloyal under any circumstances.

Next

Thompson v. Oklahoma Flashcards

thompson vs oklahoma court case

Gaumond, that are presented only in connection with the federal habeas petition. If we could be sure that each of these 19 state legislatures had deliberately chosen to authorize capital punishment for crimes committed at the age of 15, one could hardly suppose that there is a settled national consensus opposing such a practice. Thompson; and Michael Bryan, whose testimony was presented by stipulation and consisted of an account of his evening's activities with Ms. Nor is there evidence that 15-year-olds as a class are inherently incapable of being deterred from major crimes by the prospect of the death penalty. Although appellant was the youngest of the four assailants, his participation was hardly minimal. First, of course, I do not agree with b —that there is any doubt about the nonexistence of a national consensus.

Next

Thompson v. Oklahoma : Wikis (The Full Wiki)

thompson vs oklahoma court case

One might argue on the basis of this body of legislation that there is no chronological age at which the imposition of the death penalty is unconstitutional and that our current standards of decency would still tolerate the execution of 10-year-old children. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. We have rejected both legislative restrictions on the mitigating evidence that a sentencing authority may consider, e. The court then ruled as follows: Although the district court did not specifically find that the evidence Petitioner seeks to have considered contained with the Affidavits of Michael Bryan, Betty Wright, and Michael Haynes was only impeachment evidence, this Court now so finds. § 4101 West 1983 47 See also Gregg v. Laws applied , Thompson v.

Next

Thompson v. Oklahoma

thompson vs oklahoma court case

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Because there seems to me no plausible basis for answering this last question in the affirmative, I respectfully dissent. The most obvious objects of an investigation into Ms. Moreover, the deterrence rationale for the penalty is equally unacceptable with respect to such offenders, since statistics demonstrate that the vast majority of persons arrested for willful homicide are over 16 at the time of the offense, since the likelihood that the teenage offender has made the kind of cold-blooded, cost-benefit analysis that attaches any weight to the possibility of execution is virtually nonexistent, and since it is fanciful to believe that a 15-year-old would be deterred by the knowledge that a small number of persons his age have been executed during the 20th century. Thompson alleges that the state trial judge was biased against him. She testified that Thompson had been provided with all the counseling the State's Department of Human Services had available, and that none of the counseling or placements seemed to improve his behavior.

Next