Richard James Cordon v State Of Oklahoma
F 2001-668
Filed: Nov. 7, 2002
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Richard Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. His conviction and sentence were reversed, meaning he would get a new trial. Judge Lumpkin dissented, meaning he disagreed with the decision. In this case, Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a jury trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon argued that he did not get a fair trial because the court did not allow certain instructions for the jury, including his statements that could show he was innocent, as well as claims of other defenses like self-defense. After reviewing all the details of the case, the court agreed that the trial was unfair because Cordon's statement should have been presented to the jury. Because of this mistake, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. Judge Lumpkin did not agree with this decision, stating that Cordon's claims were not strong enough to change the result.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
Issues
- Was Appellant denied a fair trial by denial of his requested jury instructions as to exculpatory statements, manslaughter in the second degree, voluntary intoxication, and his theories of defense of excusable homicide and self-defense by use of non-deadly force?
- Did Appellant suffer from ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to object to hearsay and evidence of other crimes or request a limiting instruction?
Findings
- the trial court erred in failing to give the jury Cordon's requested instruction on Exculpatory Statement of Defendant
- the trial court did not err in denying requested instructions on Second Degree Manslaughter, Excusable Homicide, Voluntary Intoxication and Self Defense through the Justifiable Use of Non-Deadly Force
- the Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial
F 2001-668
Nov. 7, 2002
Richard James Cordon
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
CHAPEL, JUDGE: Richard Cordon was tried by jury and convicted of Second Degree Murder in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.1998, § 701.8(1) in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-00-2260. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Susan P. Caswell sentenced Cordon to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment. Cordon appeals from this conviction and sentence. Cordon raises the following propositions of error:
I. Appellant was denied a fair trial by denial of his requested jury instructions as to exculpatory statements, manslaughter in the second degree, voluntary intoxication, and as to his theories of defense of excusable homicide and self-defense by use of non-deadly force.
II. Appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel for failing to object to hearsay and evidence of other crimes or request a limiting instruction.
After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs, and exhibits of the parties, we find that Cordon’s conviction must be reversed based upon the law and the evidence. We find in Proposition I that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury Cordon’s requested instruction on Exculpatory Statement of Defendant.^1
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
WILLIAM H. BOCK
409 N.W. 42ND
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73118
MICHELLE L. RODGERS
6402 N. SANTA FE AVE., SUITE A
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
JOHN GILE
320 N. BROADWAY
EDMOND, OKLAHOMA 73034
DAVID PRATER
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OKLAHOMA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
320 ROBERT S. KERR, SUITE 305
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
112 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY: CHAPEL, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: DISSENT
JOHNSON, V.P.J.: CONCUR
STRUBHAR, J.: CONCUR
LILE, J.: DISSENT
^1 OUJI-CR 2d 9-15. We find that Cordon’s statement was exculpatory as it tends to establish his innocence and thus supported the requested instruction. The error was not harmless. Had the jury believed his statement, Cordon may have been acquitted. Additionally, we find that the trial court correctly denied Cordon’s requested instructions on Second Degree Manslaughter, Excusable Homicide, Voluntary Intoxication, and Self Defense through the Justifiable Use of Non-Deadly Force.
LUMPKIN, PRESIDING JUDGE: DISSENTS
The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on exculpatory statements as Appellant’s claims in his videotaped statement were refuted by the State’s evidence. In Rogers v. State, 890 P.2d 959, 970-971 (Okl.Cr.1995) this Court stated [w]hen the State introduces an exculpatory statement which, if true, would entitle the defendant to acquittal, he must be acquitted unless the statement has been disproved or shown to be false by other direct or circumstantial evidence in the case. In the present case, Appellant essentially claimed the victim was acting as if he was going to be sick and appeared delirious. Appellant said he was trying to prevent the victim from taking more Xanax when the victim swung at him; they both fell to the ground and wrestled. Appellant claimed he held the victim until he stopped fighting him and then he returned to the car. The State presented witnesses who testified they saw Appellant chasing the victim and that the victim seemed to be running hard but was out of breath and tired. Appellant was seen to grab the victim by the back of the jacket. Subsequently, the victim was seen lying on the ground. Further evidence disproving Appellant’s account of the events was presented by the pathologist who testified bruises on the victim’s arms were consistent with someone grabbing him from behind. Further, Appellant’s claims of innocence were adequately dressed in jury instructions regarding the voluntariness of his statement to police and the general instruction that the defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charges on trial. After considering the instructions in their entirety, a specific instruction on exculpatory statements was not warranted in this case. See Kinsey v. State, 798 P.2d 630, 633 (Okl.Cr.1990) (specific instruction that appellant denied having knowledge that the items were stolen or embezzled was not error as instructions as a whole fairly and accurately stated the applicable law).
Footnotes:
- ¹ OUJI-CR 2d 9-15.
- ² Rogers U. State, 890 P.2d 959, 970-971 (Okl.Cr.1995).
- ³ Kinsey U. State, 798 P.2d 630, 633 (Okl.Cr.1990).
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Second Degree Murder
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.1 - Manslaughter in the Second Degree
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 733 - Excusable Homicide
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 733.1 - Voluntary Intoxication
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 732 - Justifiable Use of Non-Deadly Force
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:
- Rogers v. State, 890 P.2d 959, 970-971 (Okl.Cr.1995)
- Kinsey v. State, 798 P.2d 630, 633 (Okl.Cr.1990)