Zachary Michael Hudson v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2005-440

Filed: Aug. 15, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. His conviction and sentence were modified to fifteen years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Judge Lumpkin dissented on the modification of the sentence.

Decision

The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Sentence is MODIFIED to fifteen years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was Appellant denied a fair trial when the court took an impermissibly proactive role in the trial of the case?
• did the evidence support a conviction for First Degree Manslaughter?
• did the trial court commit fundamental error in instructing the jury on the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter?
• did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury about the mandatory service of 85% of a sentence for murder or manslaughter?

Findings

• The court did not err in its proactive role during the trial.
• The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for First Degree Manslaughter.
• The trial court did not commit fundamental error in instructing the jury on First Degree Manslaughter.
• The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury about the mandatory service of 85% of a sentence for manslaughter; the sentence was modified accordingly.

F-2005-440

Aug. 15, 2006

Zachary Michael Hudson

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

Appellant, Zachary Michael Hudson, was tried by a jury in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2004-5, for the crime of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.2001, § 701.7). The jury found him guilty of the lesser related offense of First Degree Manslaughter (21 O.S.2001, § 711(2)), and recommended punishment of twenty years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. On April 28, 2005, the Honorable Jesse S. Harris, District Judge, sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s recommendation, and Appellant timely lodged this appeal.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error:
1. Appellant was denied a fair trial when the court took an impermissibly proactive role in the trial of the case.
2. The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for First Degree Manslaughter.
3. The trial court committed fundamental error in instructing the jury on the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter.
4. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury about the mandatory service of 85% of a sentence for murder or manslaughter, and erred in refusing to correctly answer the jury’s question about parole.

After thorough consideration of the propositions, and the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we affirm Appellant’s conviction, but modify the sentence.

As to Proposition 1, the trial court’s participation during the examination of witnesses was not improper. 12 O.S.2001, § 2614(B); Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23, ¶ 15, 48 P.3d 110, 114. The court took an active role in ensuring that witnesses understood the questions asked. Appellant’s claim that the court was partial to the State is simply not supported by the record. We find no evidence of judicial bias. Allen v. State, 1993 OK CR 49 ¶ 4, 862 P.2d 487, 489; Shepard v. State, 1988 OK CR 97, ¶¶ 11-12, 756 P.2d 597, 600. Proposition 1 is denied.

As to Propositions 2 and 3, the trial court did not err in granting the State’s request to instruct the jury on First Degree Manslaughter as a lesser related offense to First Degree Murder. Appellant was not surprised by this alternative, and the evidence reasonably supported it. Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR 41, ¶ 11, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036-37. The evidence shows that Appellant fought with the deceased, left the scene, then returned a short time later in his motor vehicle, fought with him again, and then ran over the deceased in the middle of the street. A rational juror could have rejected Appellant’s claim of accident and found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was acting in a heat of passion when he hit the deceased with his car. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Thomas v. State, 1975 OK CR 116, ¶¶ 11-14, 536 P.2d 1305, 1308-09. Propositions 2 and 3 are denied.

Finally, as to Proposition 4, Appellant timely requested an instruction on the 85% Rule, but his request was denied by the trial court. During the deliberations, the jury sent a note to the court asking about parole eligibility. We find these facts similar to those in Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273, decided by the Court while Appellant’s appeal was pending. We find the circumstances warrant modification of Appellant’s sentence from twenty years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine, to fifteen years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

DECISION

The Judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Sentence is MODIFIED to fifteen years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.2001, § 701.7
2. 21 O.S.2001, § 711(2)
3. 12 O.S.2001, § 2614(B)
4. Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23, I 15, 48 P.3d 110, 114.
5. Allen v. State, 1993 OK CR 49 I 4, 862 P.2d 487, 489
6. Shepard U. State, 1988 OK CR 97, 11 11-12, 756 P.2d 597, 600.
7. Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR 41, I 11, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036-37.
8. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
9. Thomas U. State, 1975 OK CR 116, 11-14, 536 P.2d 1305, 1308-09.
10. 21 O.S.Supp.2002, § 13.1.
11. Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 (2001) - First Degree Murder
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2001) - First Degree Manslaughter
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2614(B) (2001) - Judicial Participation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (Supp. 2002) - Mandatory Service of Sentence

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:

• Alexander v. State, 2002 OK CR 23, I 15, 48 P.3d 110, 114
• Allen v. State, 1993 OK CR 49, I 4, 862 P.2d 487, 489
• Shepard v. State, 1988 OK CR 97, 11 11-12, 756 P.2d 597, 600
• Shrum v. State, 1999 OK CR 41, I 11, 991 P.2d 1032, 1036-37
• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
• Thomas v. State, 1975 OK CR 116, 11-14, 536 P.2d 1305, 1308-09
• Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273