of his eyes and fired in that direction twice, killing [the victim]. These facts suggest a design to effect the death of [the victim] and therefore do not support a second degree murder instruction.” Taylor v. State, 998 P.2d at 1231. Reviewing the OCCA’s legal conclusions de novo, we concluded that if Mr. Taylor did not aim, but rather the gun was simply flailing around as he testified, such behavior would be imminently dangerous to another person, and it would evince a depraved mind with a disregard of human life, but stands in stark contrast to others in which this court and the OCCA concluded that a lesser-offense instruction was not needed, because in those cases, the evidence did not support the lesser-included offense. See Darks v. Mullin, 327 F.3d 1001, 1010 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Harris v. State, 84 P.3d 731, 750
holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree sodomy holding that the defendant was not entitled to a lesserincluded firstdegree manslaughter instruction when his attorney was forced to concede at oral argument that no evidence supported the adequate provocation element holding that firstdegree sexual abuse is a lesserincluded offense of firstdegree rape holding that it was error to direct entry of a conviction for a permissive lesserincluded offense based on the fact that it was supported by the evidence because the greater crime was not charged in a manner that encompassed the intent element of the permissive lesserincluded offense and the jury did not make a finding regarding that intent element