Sean Daniel Simmons v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-358
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Sean Daniel Simmons appealed his conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation. Conviction and sentence: five years imprisonment for each of three counts, to be served one after the other. Judge Hudson dissented. In simple terms, Sean Simmons was found guilty of hurting his girlfriend by choking her during fights. This happened three times, and during the fights, he made her almost pass out. Even though he did not talk in court, evidence showed he did it on purpose, even when she asked for help. Some arguments were made about whether there was enough proof and if the jury got the right instructions about what "great bodily harm" meant. However, the court decided that the evidence was enough to prove Sean was guilty, and the instructions given to the jury were apt. Overall, his appeal was denied, and his sentence stayed the same.
Decision
The judgment and sentence 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 there sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction for domestic abuse by strangulation?
- Did the trial court err by refusing to give a requested jury instruction defining "great bodily harm"?
Findings
- the court erred in denying the claims of insufficient evidence
- the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give the requested jury instruction on "great bodily harm"
F-2018-358
Sep. 12, 2019
Sean Daniel Simmons
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
OPINION
Sean Daniel Simmons, Appellant, was tried by jury and found guilty of Counts 1-3, domestic abuse by strangulation, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(J), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2017-1371. The jury found Appellant guilty after former conviction of a felony and sentenced him to five (5) years imprisonment in each count. The Honorable Michele D. McElwee, District Judge, pronounced judgment and ordered the sentences served consecutively. Mr. Simmons appeals.
FACTS
A brief statement of the facts is sufficient to address the issues raised in this appeal. The State’s evidence tends to establish that Appellant assaulted his girlfriend on three separate occasions during an extended domestic argument in the bedroom at the apartment they shared. The victim’s twelve-year-old son was asleep in the adjoining bedroom. The victim testified that Appellant strangled her three different times by placing his hands around her throat and choking her to unconsciousness. Appellant at one point dialed 911 on his phone and seemed to offer it to the victim. When she reached for the phone, he slapped her face and strangled her again. The victim eventually reported these attacks to police after waking to find the defendant gone from the apartment. She later sought emergency medical attention and was diagnosed with a crushing injury of the throat. Upon examination at the time of her ER visit, her throat was tender and mildly swollen, but bore no visible marks. She apparently suffered no permanent disfigurement, organ damage, or broken bones from the attack. She also admitted having taken medication for bipolar disorder and consuming a half-pint of vodka the night before. Appellant did not testify at trial.
ANALYSIS
In Proposition One, Appellant claims the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. This Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04. We find that any rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Simmons committed the crime of domestic abuse by strangulation based on the evidence presented at trial. Proposition One is denied.
In Proposition Two, Appellant claims the trial court should have given his requested instruction defining the phrase great bodily harm. We review the trial court’s rulings on requested instructions for abuse of discretion. Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, ¶ 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8. An abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946. Appellant argues that the phrase great bodily harm was too vague and required further definition in instructions to the jury.
Trial counsel offered no proposed written instruction but argued that the phrase great bodily harm was sensibly equivalent to the phrase great bodily injury, defined in subsection 644(O) as bone fracture, protracted and obvious disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body part, organ or mental faculty, or substantial risk of death. Counsel urged the court to instruct the jury accordingly. The trial court found no controlling legal definition for great bodily harm, and declined counsel’s request. The trial court gave Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions – Criminal [OUJI-Cr(2d)] Instruction No. 4-26D, requiring that the jury find the defendant willfully and unlawfully attempted or offered to use force or violence (assault) and used force or violence (battery) against a protected domestic relation (person in a dating relationship) with intent to cause great bodily harm by strangulation. The court’s instruction also defined strangulation as any kind of asphyxia, including but not limited to, closure of the air passages as a result of external pressure on the neck.
In charging the trial jury, the court must state all matters of law which it thinks necessary in giving their verdict. Parties may present any written instruction to the court and request that it be given. If the court finds the instruction correct and pertinent, it must be given; if not, it must be refused and entered upon the record with the trial court’s signature. 22 O.S.2011, § 856. The court should use the Uniform Jury Instructions-Criminal unless it determines that the instruction does not accurately state the law. 12 O.S.2011, § 577.2; Hammon v. State, 2000 OK CR 7, ¶ 79, 999 P.2d 1082, 1099.
In determining whether the trial court’s instructions on the elements of the offense accurately state the law, we are guided principally by the plain language of the penal statute and its apparent legislative intent. State v. Anderson, 1998 OK CR 67, ¶ 3, 972 P.2d 32, 33. The statute in question, 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(J), provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Any person who commits any assault and battery with intent to cause great bodily harm by strangulation or attempted strangulation against a [domestic relation defined by statute] shall, upon conviction, be guilty of domestic abuse by strangulation. As used in this subsection, strangulation means any form of asphyxia, including, but not limited to, asphyxia characterized by closure of the blood vessels or air passages of the neck as a result of external pressure on the neck or the closure of the nostrils or mouth as a result of external pressure on the head.
Where the Legislature enacts a law for a specific situation, this Court endeavors to give effect to the Legislature’s intent. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, ¶ 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844. The text of subsection 644(J) first identifies a complex subject: Any person who commits assault and battery; then by a series of adverbial prepositional phrases defines how and against whom a person commits assault and battery to incur guilt of this felony and suffer the greater penalties provided. How? With intent to cause great bodily harm by strangulation. Against whom? A domestic relation protected by the statute. From the text and apparent purpose of subsection 644(J), we infer that the Legislature meant to define the requisite intent to cause great bodily harm solely in terms of the specific subtype of domestic abuse proscribed in the clause that follows it; that is, by strangulation or its attempt. Intentional strangulation, or its attempt, is the great bodily harm made felonious in this subsection and punished more severely than the misdemeanor of domestic abuse prohibited in subsection 644(C). We read subsection 644(J) as requiring no more in the way of specific intent than proof of the defendant’s intentional strangulation, or attempted strangulation, of a protected domestic relation. The trial court therefore properly refused to further define the phrase great bodily harm in its instructions to the jury. Proposition Two is denied.
DECISION
The judgment and sentence 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.
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(J)
- Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, IT 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8
- C.L.F. U. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946
- OUJI-Cr(2d) Instruction No. 4-26D
- 22 O.S.2011, § 856
- 12 O.S.2011, § 577.2
- Hammon v. State, 2000 OK CR 7, I 79, 999 P.2d 1082, 1099
- State v. Anderson, 1998 OK CR 67, I 3, 972 P.2d 32, 33
- King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, I 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844
- Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, I 6, 34 P.3d 647, 648-49
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(J) (2014) - Domestic abuse by strangulation
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 856 (2011) - Jury instructions
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 577.2 (2011) - Uniform jury instructions
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:
- Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
- Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, IT 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8
- C.L.F. v. State, 1999 OK CR 12, I 5, 989 P.2d 945, 946
- Hammon v. State, 2000 OK CR 7, I 79, 999 P.2d 1082, 1099
- State v. Anderson, 1998 OK CR 67, I 3, 972 P.2d 32, 33
- King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, I 7, 182 P.3d 842, 844
- Byrd v. Caswell, 2001 OK CR 29, I 6, 34 P.3d 647, 648-49