Blog

F-2017-949

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

Montoyia Corbitt v State Of Oklahoma

F-2017-949

Filed: Jun. 13, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree for acting in the heat of passion. Her conviction resulted in a sentence of six years in prison, where she must serve at least 85% before being eligible for parole. Judge William J. Musseman oversaw the trial, which took place in Tulsa County. Corbitt argued that the evidence was not enough to convict her and claimed she acted in self-defense. She also said her trial was unfair because of the admission of certain police testimony and a photograph that she believed were inappropriate. The court reviewed the case and found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Corbitt did not act in self-defense. They stated that while self-defense can justify harmful actions, the evidence suggested that Corbitt’s response to the victim was unreasonable. The court also determined that the police officer's testimony was appropriate for a lay witness and did not unfairly influence the jury. Regarding the photograph, they concluded it provided relevant information without causing undue prejudice. The court ultimately affirmed Corbitt’s conviction and sentence. Judge Kuehn agreed with the outcome but expressed concerns about the admission of certain testimonies that could have influenced the jury's decision. #Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. Conviction and sentence of six years in prison. #Kuehn dissented regarding certain testimonies.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

  • Was the evidence sufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter in the first degree despite claims of self-defense?
  • Did the admission of improper law enforcement opinion testimony render Appellant's trial fundamentally unfair?
  • Were Appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial violated by the improper admission of an irrelevant and prejudicial photograph?

Findings

  • the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for manslaughter in the first degree-heat of passion
  • the trial court did not err in admitting law enforcement opinion testimony
  • the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an irrelevant and prejudicial photograph

F-2017-949

Jun. 13, 2019

Montoyia Corbitt

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, Montoyia Corbitt, was tried and convicted at a jury trial in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-6580, of Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 711(2). The jury recommended a sentence of imprisonment for six (6) years. The Honorable William J. Musseman, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict, granting credit for time served. ^1 Corbitt must serve not less than eighty-five (85) percent of her sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(3). Corbitt now appeals, raising three (3) propositions of error before this Court:

I. THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT DID NOT ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, §§ 7 AND 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION;

II. APPELLANT’S TRIAL WAS RENDERED FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR BY THE ADMISSION OF IMPROPER LAW ENFORCEMENT OPINION TESTIMONY THAT INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY IN VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, §§ 7 AND 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION; and

III. APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 7 AND 20 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION WERE VIOLATED BY THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF AN IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL PHOTOGRAPH.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

Proposition I: Corbitt maintained, from her arrest through trial, that she acted in self-defense and the district court fully instructed the jury on self-defense. Thus, the State bore the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Corbitt did not act in self-defense. McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, ^ 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667. Self-defense is an affirmative defense which admits the elements of the charge, but offers a legal justification for conduct which would otherwise be criminal. Spruill v. State, 2018 OK CR 25, ^ 6, 425 P.3d 753, 755 (quoting Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, ^ 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114); 21 O.S.2011, § 733. Pursuant to Oklahoma law, a person is justified in using deadly force if a reasonable person in the circumstances and from the defendant’s viewpoint would reasonably have believed that [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. Id. Upon review, we find the State presented competent evidence on which a jury could conclude that Corbitt did not possess a reasonable fear of imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, either objectively or subjectively. Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, ^ 9, 990 P.2d 900, 903-04. Thus, Corbitt was not justified in using deadly force to defend herself against the victim. Corbitt’s reaction to the victim’s advances was unreasonable and extreme. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, sufficient evidence was presented at trial to allow any rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense and the existence of the elements of heat of passion manslaughter. See Davis, 2011 OK CR 29, ^ 74, 268 P.3d at 111. Proposition I is denied.

Proposition II: Corbitt contends Det. Schilling’s opinion testimony improperly invaded the province of the jury and thus should have been precluded by the trial court. ^3 Admission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion, and will be disturbed only upon a showing of prejudice. Howell v. State, 2006 OK CR 28, ^ 13, 138 P.3d 549, 556. Upon review, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of this testimony. Opinion testimony is governed by 12 O.S.2011, § 2701, et seq. Rather than testifying as an expert, Det. Schilling’s testimony was offered as that of a lay witness. 12 O.S.2011, § 2701; see also Webster v. State, 2011 OK CR 14, ^ 72, 252 P.3d 259, 279 (a police officer whose testimony is based on logic and common sense rather than specialized knowledge is not testifying as an expert). A lay witness may testify in the form of opinions or inferences provided the opinions or inferences are rationally based on the witness’ perception, are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue and are not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, ^ 31, 422 P.3d 788, 798. Moreover, [t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. 12 O.S.2011, § 2704. As to Schilling’s testimony that Corbitt’s lethal response was an overreaction, Corbitt has waived all but plain error review of her challenge to this testimony by failing to object at trial. Bramlett, 2018 OK CR 19, ^ 30, 422 P.3d at 798. To be entitled to relief for plain error, Corbitt must show: (1) the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected [her] substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ^ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. Corbitt fails to show actual or obvious error as Det. Schilling’s opinion was proper lay witness opinion testimony. His opinion was rationally based on his perception garnered from his investigation and did not tell the jury what result to reach. We likewise find that Det. Schilling’s testimony regarding Corbitt’s differing stories, her lack of any physical injuries from the altercation, and the lack of damage to the walls in the apartment bedroom constituted proper lay opinion testimony based on his investigation. Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, ^ 18, 2 P.3d 356, 368; 12 O.S.2011, § 2701. This testimony was rationally based upon Schilling’s perceptions from Corbitt’s interview, his overall investigation of the fatal stabbing and his experience as a police detective. Moreover, Det. Schilling’s testimony aided the jury in its determination of a fact in issue, i.e., whether Corbitt stabbed the victim while in the heat of passion or acting in self-defense. Because Det. Schilling’s opinion was proper lay witness testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admission of this evidence. Proposition II is denied.

Proposition III: The trial court overruled defense counsel’s trial objections to the admission of State’s Exhibit 1—a close-up photograph of Corbitt’s head and face taken during her police interview. We review the trial court’s admission of State’s Exhibit 1 for an abuse of discretion. Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8, ^ 32, 134 P.3d 816, 837. Photographic exhibits are subject to the same relevancy and unfair prejudice analysis as any other piece of evidence. Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20, ^ 56, 423 P.3d 617, 636. Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. 12 O.S.2011, § 2401. Further, [r]elevant evidence need not conclusively, or even directly, establish the defendant’s guilt; it is admissible if, when taken with other evidence in the case, it tends to establish a material fact in issue. Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, ^ 31, 267 P.3d 114, 131. However, relevant evidence must be excluded if, in the district court’s assessment, its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403; Bear v. State, 1988 OK CR 181, ^ 23, 762 P.2d 950, 956. The court should resolve all doubts in favor of admitting the evidence. Id. Upon review, we find the trial court’s admission of State’s Exhibit 1 was not an abuse of discretion. This photograph was probative and relevant to Corbitt’s self-defense claim, which the State bore the burden of disproving, beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, contrary to Corbitt’s assertion, State’s Exhibit 1 was not duplicative and cumulative to other photographic evidence admitted at trial. State’s Exhibit 1 was the only true close-up photograph of Corbitt’s face and specifically shows the lack of injuries on her face and forehead. ^8 All things considered, the probative value of State’s Exhibit 1 was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, ^ 71, 235 P.3d 640, 657. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing introduction of this evidence. Proposition III is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

  1. 21 O.S.2011, § 711(2)
  2. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1(3)
  3. McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, I 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667
  4. Spruill v. State, 2018 OK CR 25, IT 6, 425 P.3d 753, 755
  5. Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, IT 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114
  6. 21 O.S.2011, § 733
  7. Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, I 9, 990 P.2d 900, 903-04
  8. Cipriano v. State, 2001 OK CR 25, I 16, 32 P.3d 869, 874
  9. Howell v. State, 2006 OK CR 28, 13, 138 P.3d 549, 556
  10. 12 O.S.2011, § 2701
  11. Webster v. State, 2011 OK CR 14, I 72, 252 P.3d 259, 279
  12. Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 31, 422 P.3d 788, 798
  13. Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32, I 32, 223 P.3d 1014, 1023
  14. 12 O.S.2011, § 2704
  15. Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, I 18, 2 P.3d 356, 368
  16. 12 O.S.2011, § 2401
  17. Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, IT 31, 267 P.3d 114, 131
  18. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403
  19. Bear v. State, 1988 OK CR 181, I 23, 762 P.2d 950, 956
  20. Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, I 71, 235 P.3d 640, 657
  21. Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, I 73, 164 P.3d 176, 195
  22. Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, 142 P.3d 437, 462

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711.2 (2011) - Manslaughter in the First Degree
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1.3 (2015) - Parole Eligibility
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 733 (2011) - Self-defense
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2701 (2011) - Opinion Testimony of Lay Witnesses
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2401 (2011) - Relevant Evidence
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 (2011) - Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2704 (2011) - Opinion on Ultimate Issue
  • Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2702 (2011) - Testimony by Experts and Lay Witnesses

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:

  • Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
  • Cipriano v. State, 2001 OK CR 25, I 16, 32 P.3d 869, 874
  • Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 74, 268 P.3d 86, 111
  • Howell v. State, 2006 OK CR 28, I 13, 138 P.3d 549, 556
  • McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, I 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667
  • Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, I 9, 990 P.2d 900, 903-04
  • Postelle v. State, 2011 OK CR 30, IT 31, 267 P.3d 114, 131
  • Spruill v. State, 2018 OK CR 25, IT 6, 425 P.3d 753, 755
  • Webster v. State, 2011 OK CR 14, I 72, 252 P.3d 259, 279
  • Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8, I 18, 2 P.3d 356, 368
  • Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, I 71, 235 P.3d 640, 657
  • Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8, I 32, 134 P.3d 816, 837
  • Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, I 73, 164 P.3d 176, 195
  • Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34, 142 P.3d 437, 462

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,