Antonio Deondre Smith v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-1082
Filed: Jan. 16, 2020
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Antonio Deondre Smith appealed his conviction for Accessory to Murder. Conviction and sentence: life imprisonment. Judge Hudson dissented. In this case, Antonio was accused of helping in the murder of his former step-father. He originally faced a more serious charge of First Degree Murder but was convicted of Accessory to Murder instead. At trial, he admitted he was there during the murder and helped get rid of the weapon but claimed that his nephew was the one who actually killed the victim. Antonio argued that the trial court made mistakes by allowing certain evidence (like assault rifles found at his home) into the trial and that his life sentence was too harsh. The court agreed that the rifles shouldn't have been a part of the trial because they weren't connected to the crime. However, they believed that the introduction of this evidence didn't really change the outcome of the trial. Since Antonio admitted to being involved in the crime, they upheld his conviction and sentence as appropriate. In summary, the court decided to keep Antonio's conviction and life sentence the same.
Decision
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
Issues
- Was there a trial court error in permitting the introduction of evidence of assault rifles and ammunition as res gestae and to show opportunity and identity?
- Did the appellant's sentence of life for accessory to murder constitute excessive punishment?
Findings
- the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of assault rifles and ammunition
- the sentence of life for accessory to murder is not excessive
F-2018-1082
Jan. 16, 2020
Antonio Deondre Smith
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:
Appellant, Antonio Deondre Smith, was charged in Tulsa County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-3477, with First Degree Murder. A jury convicted him of Accessory to Murder, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. On October 18, 2018, the Honorable Kelly Greenough, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s recommendation to life imprisonment. Appellant raises two propositions of error in support of his appeal:
PROPOSITION I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF ASSAULT RIFLES AND ASSAULT RIFLE AMMUNITION AS RES GESTAE AND TO SHOW OPPORTUNITY AND IDENTITY UNDER 12 O.S.2011, 2404(B) WHICH DENIED APPELLANT HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
PROPOSITION II. APPELLANT’S SENTENCE OF LIFE FOR ACCESSORY TO MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS EXCESSIVE.
After thorough consideration of these claims, the briefs of the parties, and the record on appeal, we affirm. Appellant was charged with First Degree Murder in the killing of his former step-father. The evidence showed that some years before, the victim had pled guilty to, and been convicted of, molesting Appellant’s sisters. Appellant represented himself at trial. He took the stand in his own defense, where he denied that he was the killer, but admitted being present at the murder and helping the killer dispose of the murder weapon. Appellant claimed the actual killer was his nephew, who stepped in and killed the victim when Appellant allegedly lost his nerve. Appellant was convicted of the lesser offense of Accessory to Murder.
As to Proposition I, Appellant timely objected to the introduction of certain firearms and ammunition seized from his home. We review the trial court’s admission of this evidence for an abuse of discretion. Neloms U. State, 2012 OK CR 7, 25, 274 P.3d 161, 167. Some of the ammunition found in Appellant’s home was clearly relevant to the charge, as it was the same brand and caliber of ammunition used to kill the victim. However, no firearm of that caliber was found in the home. Appellant’s complaint focuses on the introduction of three assault style firearms and related ammunition that were also seized. The trial court concluded that these firearms tended to show Appellant’s opportunity to commit the crime. 1 We disagree. These firearms were of a different caliber than the one used in the murder, and nothing else provided any visible connection between them and the crime.² 12 O.S.2011, §§ 2401-03. The State’s argument that the firearms were res gestae is not convincing. Res gestae is a description of why evidence might be relevant under evidence rules; it is not an exception to those rules. All admitted evidence should tend to prove or disprove some fact in issue, and in some cases, even relevant evidence should be excluded. Id. Evidence is res gestae if it is (1) SO closely connected to the charged crime that it forms part of the entire transaction; (2) necessary for a complete understanding of the crime; or (3) central to the chain of events. Hammick U. State, 2019 OK CR 21, I 16, 449 P.3d 1272, 1277. The assault weapons at issue here were not connected to, and did not explain anything about, the murder. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting these firearms, as they had no visible connection to the murder and were not relevant. O’Neal U. State, 1955 OK CR 134, I 7, 291 P.2d 375, 376-77.
Whether this evidence had an improper effect on the jury’s verdict, however, is another matter. We do not believe that it did. First, the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury on the limited purpose of the firearm evidence. See OUJI-CR (2nd) No. 9-9. We presume the jury followed this instruction. Hammick, 2019 OK CR 21, I 19, 449 P.3d at 1277. Second, Appellant was only convicted of being an accessory to murder – a crime he actually admitted to in his testimony. In fact, on appeal he concedes that any prejudice is limited to the sentence recommended by the jury. But when he testified, Appellant admitted to more than just wanting to kill the victim and aiding the real killer. He admitted being a multiple felon, who dealt drugs and routinely carried firearms. He also admitted the assault rifles were his. None of this conduct was directly related to the murder. Considering these facts, the trial court’s evidentiary ruling did not materially affect the sentence imposed. See Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 36, 876 P.2d 690, 702 (error is harmless where it did not influence the jury, or had a very slight effect (quoting Kotteakos U. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-765 (1946)). Proposition I is denied.
As to Proposition II, the State presented circumstantial evidence to prove that Appellant had murdered his ex-stepfather. Then Appellant took the witness stand; he admitted wanting to kill the victim, but claimed his nephew stepped in and did so in his stead. Appellant admitted helping to destroy the murder weapon after the shooting. He also admitted routinely carrying firearms and dealing drugs, despite having several felony convictions, at least one of which involved a firearm. Given the reasonable inferences about Appellant’s involvement in the killing, coupled with his criminal history, the sentence imposed is not shocking to the conscience. Rea U. State, 2001 OK CR 28, I 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149. Proposition II is denied.
DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2020), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.
AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE KELLY GREENOUGH, DISTRICT JUDGE
ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL
MARNY HILL
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
423 S. BOULDER AVE, STE. 300
TULSA, OK 74103
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL
RICHARD COUCH
ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
423 S. BOULDER AVE., STE. 300
TULSA, OK 74103
STAND-BY DEFENSE COUNSEL
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
ANTONIO DEONDRE SMITH PRO SE
KEVIN GRAY
MIKE HUNTER
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLA.
500 S. DENVER, STE. 900
TULSA, OK 74103
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE
JENNIFER B. MILLER
ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
313 NE 21ST STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
OPINION BY KUEHN, V.P.J.
LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR
LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
HUDSON, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR
I concur in the results of today’s decision denying relief. I respectfully disagree with the majority, however, that the trial court’s admission of evidence concerning the three assault rifles and related ammo discovered by authorities in Appellant’s apartment was an abuse of discretion. The admission of evidence rests within the trial court’s broad discretion. Moore U. State, 2019 OK CR 12, I 14, 443 P.3d 579, 583. Evidence of the assault rifles demonstrated Appellant’s ability to obtain and possess a firearm. Authorities never found the murder weapon, making this evidence particularly relevant. A visible connection arose between this evidence and the murder from the close proximity of the assault weapons to the 9mm ammo found in the apartment. The absence of the murder weapon amongst this grouping of other firearms and ammo was circumstantial evidence implicating Appellant in the victim’s killing and was thus relevant. On this record, the trial court could reasonably find admission of this evidence proper either as res gestae evidence, see Vanderpool U. State, 2018 OK CR 39, I 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324 (Res gestae are those things, events and circumstances incidental to and surrounding a larger event that help explain it.), or as properly admitted other crimes evidence under 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B) showing opportunity. The probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and was thus admissible. There was no abuse of discretion from Judge Greenough’s evidentiary ruling. See Moore, 2019 OK CR 12, I 14, 443 P. 3d at 583 (An abuse of discretion is a conclusion or judgment that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented.). I would deny relief for Proposition I on these grounds. I am authorized to state that Judge Lumpkin joins in this writing.
Footnotes:
- 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B).
- 12 O.S.2011, §§ 2401-03.
- O'Neal U. State, 1955 OK CR 134, I 7, 291 P.2d 375, 376-77.
- Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 36, 876 P.2d 690, 702.
- Rea U. State, 2001 OK CR 28, I 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149.
- Moore U. State, 2019 OK CR 12, I 14, 443 P.3d 579, 583.
- Vanderpool U. State, 2018 OK CR 39, I 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- 12 O.S. tit. 12 § 2404(B) - Evidence: Other Crimes
- 12 O.S. tit. 12 § 2401 - Evidence: Relevant Evidence
- 12 O.S. tit. 12 § 2402 - Evidence: Exclusion and Balancing
- 21 O.S. tit. 21 § 701.8 - Sentencing: Accessory to Murder
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:
- Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 25, 274 P.3d 161, 167.
- Hammick v. State, 2019 OK CR 21, I 16, 449 P.3d 1272, 1277.
- O'Neal v. State, 1955 OK CR 134, I 7, 291 P.2d 375, 376-77.
- Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, I 36, 876 P.2d 690, 702.
- Rea v. State, 2001 OK CR 28, I 5, 34 P.3d 148, 149.
- Moore v. State, 2019 OK CR 12, I 14, 443 P.3d 579, 583.
- Vanderpool v. State, 2018 OK CR 39, I 24, 434 P.3d 318, 324.