Sumeika D. Byrd v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-482
Filed: Aug. 1, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Sumeika D. Byrd appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. Conviction and sentence for life imprisonment. Judge Hudson dissented.
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 the evidence sufficient to support Ms. Byrd's conviction for First Degree Murder?
- did the trial court violate Ms. Byrd's due process right to a fundamentally fair trial by giving the "flight" instruction?
Findings
- the evidence was sufficient to support Ms. Byrd's conviction
- the trial court did not err in giving the "flight" instruction
F-2018-482
Aug. 1, 2019
Sumeika D. Byrd
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
LUMPKIN, JUDGE: Appellant, Sumeika D. Byrd, was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 701.7, in the District Court of Oklahoma County Case Number CF-2016-5000. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for life. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals. Appellant raises the following propositions of error in this appeal:
I. Because the evidence was insufficient to support Ms. Byrd’s conviction, due process requires his [sic] case to be reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss.
II. Ms. Byrd’s due process right to a fundamentally fair trial was violated by the trial court giving the flight instruction.
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 under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted.
In Proposition One, Appellant argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed Brendon Turner unlawfully and with malice aforethought. 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.
Appellant first claims the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in self-defense when she killed Turner. 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. *Davis v. State*, 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114; 21 O.S.2011, § 733. Under Oklahoma law, a person is justified in using deadly force if a reasonable person in the circumstances and from the defendant’s perspective would reasonably have believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. *Davis*, 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 95, 268 P.3d at 114. The use of force in defense of oneself is limited by 21 O.S.2011, § 643(3) and is lawful as follows: When committed either by the person about to be injured, or by any other person in such person’s aid or defense, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against such person, or any trespass or other unlawful interference with real or personal property in such person’s lawful possession; provided the force or violence used is not more than sufficient to prevent such offense.
Appellant had to show that she killed Turner while she had reasonable grounds to believe she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury from Turner. *Robinson*, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d at 432. She presented sufficient evidence to raise the claim and the State had to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. *McHam v. State*, 2005 OK CR 28, ¶ 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667. Conflicting evidence was presented at trial. Appellant’s statements to police, her letter to the trial court and her testimony, conflicted with the medical examiner’s testimony and the crime scene evidence. Even where the evidence conflicts, this Court will not interfere with a verdict as long as the evidence supports the jury’s finding of guilt. *Robinson*, 2011 OK CR 15, ¶ 17, 255 P.3d at 432. This 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.
The jury heard different versions of how Appellant stabbed Turner, in her statement to police and in her testimony. Presented with these inconsistencies, the jury could conclude that Appellant’s inconsistent statements regarding the events were her attempts to conceal the truth that she did not act in self-defense but deliberately killed Turner. Additionally, the evidence showed Appellant was consistent in her statements that she was exiting the house when she stabbed Turner, thereby escaping from him. Thus, the jury could find any belief Appellant had that she was facing imminent danger of death or great bodily injury was not reasonable. Finally, the medical evidence revealed that Turner suffered seventeen sharp force wounds. Of these, two were fatal, the wound to his heart and the wound to his abdomen. The stab wound to Turner’s heart was the result of a twisting motion, which pierced his sternum and ribs before reaching his heart, and the abdominal wound took significant force. Turner also had defensive wounds on his arm and back. This evidence contradicted Appellant’s varied accounts of randomly swinging the knife. These wounds were purposeful. Based upon this record, the State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant did not act in self-defense when she killed Turner.
Appellant also argues the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed Turner with malice aforethought. The jury received the following definition of malice aforethought: Malice aforethought means a deliberate intention to take away the life of a human being. The deliberate intent to take a human life must be formed before the act and must exist at the time a homicidal act is committed. No particular length of time is required for formation of this deliberate intent. The intent may have been formed instantly before commission of the act. Circumstantial evidence can provide proof of an element of a crime, including malice aforethought. Moreover, the manner of killing and the pattern of wounds may support a finding of intent to kill.
As stated above, Turner suffered seventeen separate sharp force injuries. Of the two fatal ones, the one to Turner’s abdomen took a great deal of force and the one to his heart had to go first through his ribs and sternum. The heart wound was also jagged, indicating Appellant twisted the knife as she stabbed Turner’s heart. Turner also had defensive wounds on the back of his arm and on his back. Again, this shows that Appellant intentionally stabbed Turner. The evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to find that Appellant did not act in self-defense when she killed Turner and that she intentionally killed him. Proposition One is denied.
In her second proposition, Appellant contends the trial court erred in giving the flight instruction. Appellant objected to the instruction; therefore, review of this claim is for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented or, stated otherwise, any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue. Jury instructions are sufficient where they accurately state the applicable law. This Court recently clarified the use of the flight instruction. Flight instructions should only be given when a defendant interposes a plea of self-defense or justifiable homicide or otherwise explains his departure. The instruction given narrows a jury’s consideration of the facts regarding a defendant’s actions after the crime and allows them to determine whether the actions constitute flight. And if the jury determines that a defendant was in flight, that flight is one circumstance they can consider in determining guilt.
As addressed in Proposition I, Appellant defended on the basis of self-defense and she testified she left the scene. Therefore, as set forth in the previous precedent, the trial court properly instructed the jury regarding Appellant’s flight. Appellant’s argument that this Court should abolish the flight instruction is without merit. As shown above, the flight instruction allows the jury to consider whether the defendant was in flight or not. Only after determining the defendant was in flight may the jury consider that fact as a circumstance affecting guilt. As the trial court properly gave the flight instruction, there was no abuse of discretion. 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.2011, § 701.7
- 21 O.S.2011, § 13.1
- 21 O.S.2011, § 733
- 21 O.S.2011, § 643(3)
- Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38, 27, 989 P.2d 1017, 1029
- Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, 18, 255 P.3d 425, 432
- Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114
- McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667
- Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, 13, 248 P. 3d 362, 368
- Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 13, 35, 871 P.2d 79, 93
- Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, 9, 990 P.2d 900, 903-04
- Dunkle v. State, 2006 OK CR 29, 18, 139 P.3d 228, 235
- Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15, 46, 422 P.3d 752, 761
- Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27, 19, 426 P.3d 614, 619
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7 - First Degree Murder
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 733 - Self-Defense
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 643 - Use of Force in Defense
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:
- 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
- Davis v. State, 2011 OK CR 29, I 95, 268 P.3d 86, 114
- Robinson v. State, 2011 OK CR 15, I 17, 255 P.3d 432
- McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28, I 10, 126 P.3d 662, 667
- Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, I 13, 248 P.3d 362, 368
- Dunkle v. State, 2006 OK CR 29, I 18, 139 P.3d 228, 235
- Perryman v. State, 1999 OK CR 39, I 9, 990 P.2d 900, 903-04
- Allen v. State, 1994 OK CR 13, I 35, 871 P.2d 79, 93
- Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38, I 27, 989 P.2d 1017, 1029
- Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15, I 46, 422 P.3d 752, 761
- Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27, I 19, 426 P.3d 614, 619
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23, I 59, 241 P.3d 214, 233-34
- Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170