The State Of Oklahoma v Jamar Mordecai Simms
S-2017-986
Filed: May 1, 2018
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: Jamal Mordecai Simms
Summary
Jamar Mordecai Simms appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Murder. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In this case, the State tried to use a police officer's body camera video in the trial, but the judge decided to exclude it because it was too gruesome and upsetting. The court agreed with the judge's decision and decided that the State did not show how the video was necessary for the case. Only Judge Kuehn wrote the opinion, and all the other judges except for Rowland agreed with the decision, while Rowland chose not to participate.
Decision
The decision of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there an abuse of discretion in excluding Officer Robison's body camera video?
- Did the trial court properly consider the probative value versus prejudicial effect of the evidence?
- Was the video needlessly gruesome and unfairly prejudicial to the defendant?
- Did the State fail to demonstrate that relevant information in the video could not be presented in another manner?
Findings
- the court did not err in excluding Officer Robison's body camera video
- the State's claim of error is denied
- the decision of the District Court of Oklahoma County is affirmed
S-2017-986
May 1, 2018
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellantv
Jamar Mordecai Simms
Appellee
v
Jamar Mordecai Simms
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
KUEHN, JUDGE: Appellee, Jamal Mordecai Simms, is charged in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2016-7415, with two counts of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7). On September 15, 2017, a few days before trial was set to begin, Simms filed a Motion in Limine re: Gruesome Photographs. He asked the court to exclude certain exhibits that the State intended to offer at trial – specifically, crime-scene video and photographs, as well as autopsy photographs – claiming they were needlessly gruesome and unfairly prejudicial to him. A hearing was held September 25, 2017, before the Honorable Ray C. Elliott, District Judge. The hearing was limited to the admissibility of video from a police officer’s body camera as he and his partner attended to the crime scene. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Elliott excluded the video from evidence to be presented at trial.
The State appeals under 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(6), which permits review of a pretrial order, decision or judgment suppressing or excluding evidence in cases alleging violation of any provisions of Section 13.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. The State raises one proposition of error in support of its appeal:
PROPOSITION. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN EXCLUDING OFFICER ROBISON’S BODY CAMERA VIDEO.
After thorough consideration of this proposition, and the record before us on appeal, we affirm. We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ramos, 2013 OK CR 3, I 14, 297 P.3d 1251, 1254. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action, taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the issue; a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and effect of the facts. Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170. A trial court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403. Here, the trial court entertained argument about the probative value of the video, but concluded that it was unnecessarily gruesome. The video does not just depict the crime scene; it chronicles the last fifteen minutes in the life of one of the two homicide victims, as she drowns in her own blood and the officers frantically try to help her. The State was unable to specify what relevant information in this video could not be presented in some other fashion. Nor did the State offer to accommodate the court’s concerns, such as by redacting the video or using screenshots instead. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the video. The State’s claim of error is denied.
DECISION
The decision of the District Court of Oklahoma County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY THE HONORABLE RAY C. ELLIOTT, DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS AT HEARING ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL ON MOTION IN LIMINE
DAVID W. PRATER
MELANIE FREEMAN-JOHNSON
OKLA. COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PIERCE WINTERS
ADAM KALLSNICK
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
320 ROBERT S. KERR
320 ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE
SUITE 611
SUITE 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/STATE
ADAM KALLSNICK
NO RESPONSE FILED
KELLY COLLINS
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
320 ROBERT S. KERR
SUITE 505
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
OPINION BY KUEHN, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
HUDSON, J.: CONCUR
ROWLAND, J.: RECUSED
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 701.7
- 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(6)
- 12 O.S.2011, § 2403
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 (2012) - First Degree Murder
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2011) - Pretrial Appeal
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 (2011) - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence
Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:
No Oklahoma administrative rules found.
U.S. Code citations:
No US Code citations found.
Other citations:
No other rule citations found.
Case citations:
- State v. Ramos, 2013 OK CR 3, I 14, 297 P.3d 1251, 1254
- Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170