Daniel Hawkes Fears v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2004-1279

Filed: Jan. 26, 2007

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Daniel Hawkes Fears

Summary

Daniel Hawkes Fears appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including Murder in the First Degree and related offenses. His conviction led to life imprisonment without the chance for parole and several other lengthy sentences. The court, in a previous opinion, found that there was not enough evidence to prove Fears was sane during the crimes and ordered a verdict of not guilty due to insanity. The State of Oklahoma asked for a rehearing, but the court denied this request. Judge Lumpkin dissented, arguing that the jury should have been allowed a retrial under correct instructions.

Decision

The Court was aware of and considered all controlling case law and factual circumstances in deciding this case. When presented with a question of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court was required to determine whether the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Having done so, this Court has the authority to reach the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, and to apply the appropriate remedy. The State's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. IT IS so ORDERED.

Issues

• Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for murder and other charges?
• Did the court err in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence regarding the defendant's sanity at the time of the crimes?
• Should juries in future cases be instructed on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity?
• Did the State meet the burden of proof regarding the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt?
• Did the court have the authority to reverse the jury's verdict and direct entry of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity?
• Did the State appropriately raise its claims in the Petition for Rehearing according to court rules?

Findings

• the State's Petition for Rehearing is denied
• the Court did not err in instructing juries on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity
• the evidence of Fears's sanity was insufficient
• the convictions must be reversed and a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity entered
• the remedy is a directed verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity

F-2004-1279

Jan. 26, 2007

Daniel Hawkes Fears

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Daniel Hawkes Fears was tried by jury in the District Court of Sequoyah County, Case No. CF-2002-568, and convicted of Counts I and II, Murder in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 701.7; Counts III – X, Shooting with Intent to Kill in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 652(A); Counts XI, Discharging a Firearm with Intent to Kill in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 652(A); Count XII, Feloniously Pointing a Firearm in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1289.16; and Counts XIII – XVII, Drive By Shooting in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 652(B). In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable John Garrett sentenced Fears to two terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, to run consecutively (Counts I and II); nine terms of life imprisonment in Counts III – XI, each to be served consecutively to Counts I and II and concurrently to one another; nine (9) years and one (1) day imprisonment in Count XII, to be served consecutive to Counts III – XI; and five terms of imprisonment for nineteen (19) years and one (1) day in Counts XIII – XVII, each to be served consecutively to Counts III – XI and concurrently with Counts XII – XVI. The trial court sustained Fears’s demurrer to the evidence on Count XVIII, Drive By Shooting.

On July 7, 2006, by unpublished Opinion this Court reversed and remanded the case to the District Court of Sequoyah County for entry of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and issued the mandate in the case. The State filed a Petition for Rehearing on July 19, 2006. On July 20, 2006, this Court issued an order staying the mandate in the case. A Petition for Rehearing shall be filed for two reasons only: (1) That some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by the attorney of record has been overlooked by the Court, or (2) That the decision is in conflict with an express statute or controlling decision to which the attention of this Court was not called either in the brief or in oral argument.

The State’s Petition for Rehearing fails to meet the criteria set forth in Rule 3.14 and is denied. In reaching its conclusions the Court thoroughly reviewed all controlling authority and the factual circumstances of the case. The state first objects to the Court’s holding that in future cases, juries should be instructed on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Contrary to the State’s claim, the Court was aware of and reviewed statutory and case law precedent in reaching this conclusion. Furthermore, the State made many of these arguments, and the Court was directed to the pertinent cases, during our initial consideration of the direct appeal. The State raises nothing new for the Court’s consideration. In filing its Petition, the State does not contest this Court’s unanimous conclusion that this case must be reversed for pervasive prosecutorial misconduct.

The State objects to the majority’s further conclusion that the evidence of Fears’s sanity was insufficient, and that the conviction must be reversed and a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity entered. The State mistakenly suggests that this Court does not have the authority to reach this decision. Again, the State’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence does not meet the requirements for rehearing as set forth in this Court’s Rules and quoted above. However, because of the unusual nature of the sufficiency of the evidence claim in this case, we provide additional discussion of the legal basis for our conclusion.

As a general rule, a jury hears the evidence presented during a trial, determines the facts of the case, and uses those facts to decide the defendant’s guilt. In deciding issues presented on appeal, this Court does not disturb the jury’s finding of fact. However, an exception is made to this general rule when this Court is directly presented with a claim that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support a conviction. In those very narrow circumstances, it is this Court’s duty to independently review the evidence and determine whether, as a matter of law, it is sufficient to support the conviction. If the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, the remedy is to dismiss the case. Because double jeopardy prohibits a second trial after an appellate court has found the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction, the remedy is reversal with instructions to dismiss.

There is no second chance, because our criminal justice system gives the State one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble. The State is not afforded a second opportunity to re-try the defendant with more or better evidence. Fears’s case falls squarely within this narrow exception to the general rule of appellate review. Fears raised the affirmative defense of insanity. Fears was required to present evidence that he was insane at the time of the crimes, and thus not eligible to be convicted for criminal offenses as a result of his actions. Nobody contests the fact that Fears put forth ample evidence that he was insane at the time of the crimes – that is, Fears met his initial burden to raise a reasonable doubt regarding his sanity. At that point, the State had the burden to prove Fears was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court determined that some of the State’s evidence was inadmissible, and that the State relied on improper inference and argument for much of its proof of sanity.

Reviewing, but not weighing, the admissible evidence presented, a majority of this Court found that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Fears was sane at the time of the crimes. This led to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support Fears’s convictions. The State’s confusion on this issue is understandable. We are rarely presented with a claim of valid insufficient evidence. A finding that evidence is legally insufficient is even rarer. An insufficiency claim in the context of an affirmative defense is unusual, and this court has never before found the evidence insufficient in a case where the insanity defense was presented. However, a majority of this Court found that the admissible evidence before Fears’s jury was insufficient as a matter of law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time of the crimes. Consequently, the proper remedy is that reserved for findings of insufficient evidence – reversal. The remedy for most insufficiency findings is to order the District Court to dismiss the case. However, the remedy is slightly different where the affirmative defense was insanity. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, specific statutory procedures require his immediate indefinite commitment, with continual court oversight. For this reason, this Court directed the District Court to enter a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the result the jury could legally reach based on the admissible evidence presented at trial.

The State incorrectly suggests that this Court weighed the evidence on appeal. On the contrary, this Court independently reviewed the evidence, as is our duty, after removing inadmissible evidence and improper argument which was used in lieu of evidence to support the conviction. It is this review, rather than any attempt to weigh the remaining evidence, which the opinion sets out in detail.

The Court was aware of and considered all controlling case law and factual circumstances in deciding this case. When presented with a question of insufficiency of the evidence, this Court was required to determine whether the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Having done so, this Court has the authority to reach the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, and to apply the appropriate remedy. The State’s Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision. IT IS so ORDERED.

**[Link to PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2004-1279_1738841295.pdf)**

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7
2. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(A)
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.16
4. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(B)
5. Fears v. State, No. F-2004-1279 (Okl. Cr. July 7, 2006) (not for publication).
6. Rule 3.14, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006).
7. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).
8. Burks, 437 U.S. at 16, 98 S.Ct. at 2150; LaFevers v. State, 1995 OK CR 26, 897 P.2d 292, 302; Edwards v. State, 1991 OK CR 71, 815 P.2d 670, 672; Clogston v. State, 34 Okla.Crim. 209, 245 P. 905, 906 (Okl.Cr. 1926).
9. Slaton v. State, 97 Okla. Crim. 12, 257 P.2d 330, 332 (Okl.Cr. 1953) (citation omitted).
10. Couch v. City of Tulsa, 96 Okla.Crim. 100, 249 P.2d 474, 475 (Okl.Cr. 1952).
11. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 709 P.2d 202, 203.
12. Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36, 988 P.2d 352.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - Murder in the First Degree
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(A) - Shooting with Intent to Kill
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(A) - Discharging a Firearm with Intent to Kill
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1289.16 - Feloniously Pointing a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 652(B) - Drive By Shooting
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.14 - Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 - Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1302 - Affirmative Defense of Insanity

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:

• Fears v. State, No. F-2004-1279 (Okl. Cr. July 7, 2006)
• Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)
• LaFevers v. State, 1995 OK CR 26, 897 P.2d 292, 302
• Edwards v. State, 1991 OK CR 71, 815 P.2d 670, 672
• Clogston v. State, 34 Okla.Crim. 209, 245 P. 905, 906 (Okl.Cr. 1926)
• Couch v. City of Tulsa, 96 Okla.Crim. 100, 249 P.2d 474, 475 (Okl.Cr. 1952)
• Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36, 988 P.2d 352
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, IT 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203
• Seabolt v. State, 2006 OK CR 50, P.3d