Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2018-119

Filed: May 23, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, kidnapping, and gang association. The court upheld his convictions and sentences, which were 25 years for robbery, 20 years for kidnapping, and 5 years for gang association. Judge Rowland dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is hereby 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 there sufficient evidence to support Mr. Hill's convictions?
• Did the improper admission of other crimes evidence violate Mr. Hill's right to a fair trial?
• Did the trial court's decision to allow the jury to separate post-instructions constitute reversible error?
• Was the presentation of gang affiliation evidence unduly prejudicial and cumulative, depriving Mr. Hill of a fair trial?

Findings

• Evidence was sufficient to support Appellant's convictions.
• The trial court did not err in admitting other crimes evidence.
• The trial court's decision to allow jury separation did not result in prejudicial error.
• The admission of gang affiliation evidence was not unduly prejudicial.

F-2018-119

May 23, 2019

Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr.

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, Arthur Tequon Hill, Jr., was tried by jury and convicted of Robbery with a Firearm (Count 1) (21 O.S.2011, § 801), Kidnapping (Count 2) (21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 741), and Gang Association (Count 4) (21 O.S.2011, § 856.3) in District Court of Oklahoma County Case Number CF-2014-1471. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for twenty-five (25) years in Count 1; twenty (20) years in Count 2; and five (5) years in Count 4. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. It is from these judgments and sentences that Appellant appeals.

Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:

I. Because the evidence was insufficient to support Mr. Hill’s conviction, due process requires his case to be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

II. The improper admission of other crimes evidence violated Mr. Hill’s right to a fair trial in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions.

III. The trial court allowed the jury to break sequestration over the objection of the Defense and State resulting in presumed error requiring reversal.

IV. The needless presentation of cumulative gang affiliation evidence was unduly prejudicial and deprived Mr. Hill a fair trial.

After thorough consideration of these propositions and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts and briefs of the parties, we have determined that neither reversal nor modification of sentence is warranted under the law and the evidence.

In Proposition One, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. This Court follows the standard for the determination of the sufficiency of the evidence which the United States Supreme Court set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559; Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204. Under this test, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789; Easlick, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 5, 90 P.3d at 558-59; Spuehler, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d at 203-204. A reviewing court must accept all reasons, inferences, and credibility choices that tend to support the verdict. Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, ¶ 13, 248 P.3d 362, 368. Appellant does not challenge the State’s proof as to any of the requisite elements. Instead, he argues that the evidence was insufficient because the State failed to present evidence that corroborated the accomplice’s testimony.

Reviewing the record, we find that there was independent evidence which tended to connect Appellant with the commission of the charged crimes as required by 22 O.S.2011, § 742. Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12, ¶ 41, 157 P.3d 143, 152; Cummings v. State, 1998 OK CR 45, ¶ 20, 968 P.2d 821, 830. Accordingly, the jury was free to consider all of the testimony presented at trial including that of Appellant’s accomplice. Taking the evidence in the present case in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Proposition One is denied.

In Proposition Two, Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to introduce evidence that he had participated in two separate robberies two days before the charged offenses. Reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that this other crimes evidence was admissible under 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B). Williams v. State, 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 36, 188 P.3d 208, 218. There were sufficient similarities between the robberies to make the evidence of the prior robberies admissible to prove the identity of Appellant as one of the robbers in the instant offenses. Id., 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 37-44, 188 P.3d at 219-20; Pickens v. State, 1988 OK CR 35, ¶ 3, 751 P.2d 742, 743. Proposition Two is denied.

In Proposition Three, Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it, over defense counsel’s objection, allowed the jury to separate after the jury instructions had been read and closing argument concluded. The State concedes that this constituted error under 22 O.S. 2011, § 857 but argues that the error was not prejudicial. See Johnson v. State, 2004 OK CR 23, ¶¶ 18-19, 93 P.3d 41, 46-47; Page v. State, 1958 OK CR 105, ¶¶ 4-5, 332 P.2d 693, 695-96. We agree. Reviewing the record in the present case, we find that the State has overcome the presumption of prejudice and affirmatively shown that Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to sequester the jury. J. M. F. v. State, 2018 OK CR 29, ¶ 5, 427 P.3d 154, 155; Johnson, 2004 OK CR 23, ¶¶ 20 & 24, 93 P.3d at 47-48. The trial court sternly admonished the jurors before they left the courtroom not to discuss the case with anybody else and to wait to start their deliberations until after they had retired to the jury deliberation room. Following Appellant’s motion for mistrial and the jury’s return of its verdicts, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Although certain jurors accessed the internet and/or communicated with individuals not on the jury during the break, the record clearly showed that the jurors had followed the trial court’s admonishment. Each of the jurors indicated that they had neither discussed the case with anyone else nor looked up anything about the case. Since the record affirmatively shows that the jurors followed the trial court’s admonishments and, thus, were not exposed to any outside prejudicial communication or influences, we find that Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to keep the jury sequestered after they heard the charge. Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 109, 144 P.3d 838, 876, overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. State, 2018 OK CR 6, ¶ 11, 419 P.3d 265, 269; Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, ¶¶ 15-16, 784 P.2d 79, 84 (finding no prejudice to defendant for evening separation of jury where there was no evidence jurors did not follow admonishment). No relief is required. Proposition Three is denied.

In Proposition Four, Appellant contends that the State’s evidence of his gang affiliation violated 12 O.S.2011, § 2403 because the evidence was needlessly cumulative and its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact. Reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the gang affiliation evidence was admissible. Willis v. State, 2017 OK CR 23, ¶ 20, 406 P.3d 30, 35. The challenged evidence held great probative value regarding the charge of Gang Association as set out in 21 O.S.2011, § 856.3. The evidence also tended to corroborate the accomplice testimony and prove Appellant’s identity as one of the robbers involved in the instant offense. Warner, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 168, 144 P.3d at 887. While certain parts of the State’s evidence were duplicative or repetitive, Appellant has failed to meet his burden of showing the repetition was needless or inflammatory. Id.; Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, ¶ 63, 235 P.3d 640, 656. Giving the gang affiliation evidence its maximum reasonable probative force and its minimum reasonable prejudicial value we find that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, ¶ 71, 235 P.3d at 657. Proposition Four is denied.

DECISION

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is hereby 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, § 801
2. 21 O.S.Supp.2012, § 741
3. 21 O.S.2011, § 856.3
4. 21 O.S.2011, § 11
5. 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1
6. 22 O.S.2011, § 742
7. 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B)
8. 22 O.S. 2011, § 857
9. 12 O.S.2011, § 2403
10. 21 O.S.2011, § 856.3

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 801 (2011) - Robbery with a Firearm
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 741 (2012) - Kidnapping
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 856.3 (2011) - Gang Association
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 11 (2011) - Merger of Offenses
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2011) - Parole Eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 742 (2011) - Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2404(B) (2011) - Other Crimes Evidence
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 857 (2011) - Sequestration of Jury
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2403 (2011) - Relevant Evidence

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:

• Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)
• Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, I 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204
• Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12, I 41, 157 P.3d 143, 152
• Cummings v. State, 1998 OK CR 45, I 20, 968 P.2d 821, 830
• Williams v. State, 2008 OK CR 19, I 36, 188 P.3d 208, 218
• Williams v. State, 2008 OK CR 19, II 37-44, 188 P.3d 219-20
• Pickens v. State, 1988 OK CR 35, I 3, 751 P.2d 742, 743
• Johnson v. State, 2004 OK CR 23, II 18-19, 93 P.3d 41, 46-47
• Page v. State, 1958 OK CR 105, II 4-5, 332 P.2d 693, 695-96
• J. M. F. v. State, 2018 OK CR 29, I 5, 427 P.3d 154, 155
• Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, I 109, 144 P.3d 838, 876
• Day v. State, 1989 OK CR 83, 15-16, 784 P.2d 79, 84
• Willis v. State, 2017 OK CR 23, I 20, 406 P.3d 30, 35
• Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, I 63, 235 P.3d 640, 656
• Mitchell v. State, 2010 OK CR 14, I 71, 235 P.3d 657