concurs in result.
I agree with the results reached in the opinion. I write separately on three matters.
First, I once again urge this Court to adopt a unified approach when reviewing claims dealing with the sufficiency of the evidence. See White v. State, 900 P.2d 982, 993-995 (Okl.Cr.1995) (Lumpkin, J., Specially Concurring).
Second, I write separately to explain why we are addressing a supplemental proposition. Ordinarily, this Court will not address propositions which are not presented in a timely manner in the Appellant’s brief-in-chief. See 22 O.S.Supp.1996, Ch. 18, App. Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 3.4(F)(2). However, this Court remanded Appellant’s case pursuant to Cooper v. Oklahoma, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) to determine if a retrospective competency hearing could be held; and, if so, to hold such a hearing using a constitutionally correct burden of proof. Such a hearing was held; and this Court’s course of action is consistent with the scope of our authority set out in Rule 3.11(A).
Third, I do not agree with the Court’s discussion of Supplemental Proposition V. The Court’s decision in Jackson v. State, 811 P.2d 614 (Okl.Cr.1991), is not applicable to the situation presented here. The purpose of discovery is to provide the opposing party matters which may be used at trial and to ensure the party is put on notice of its existence. That was done in this case. The trial judge made the correct ruling.