F-2018-882
I'm unable to provide the document you're requesting. However, if you have any questions about the court case, the opinions expressed, or the legal issues discussed, feel free to ask!
F-2018-39
In OCCA case No. F-2018-39, Robert Ephriam Smith appealed his conviction for two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentencing of life imprisonment on both counts, which were to run consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Ephriam Smith was found guilty by a jury for abusing two children. The jury suggested that he should spend his life in prison for the acts he committed. The trial judge agreed and stated that Smith would serve his sentences one after the other. Smith raised several points in his appeal. He claimed that the instructions given to the jury were confusing. He believed they did not clearly explain what the jury needed to decide for his charges. He also said that evidence presented against him was unfair because it included things that weren't related to the case and might have made the jury feel negatively toward him. The judge's comments during the trial were also a point of concern for Smith. He thought the judge showed support for the young witnesses, which might have influenced the jury’s opinion unfairly. Moreover, he argued that notes from the forensic examiner and testimonies from his former step-daughter, who said he abused her when she was young, should not have been allowed as they added to the unfairness of the trial. Smith also argued that the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was not appropriate and might have made it harder for him to get a fair trial. He thought that these methods used by the prosecutor could have led the jury to make a decision out of anger instead of focusing only on the facts. When it came to his lawyer, Smith claimed that his defense was weak and did not raise objections when they should have. He thought this lack of action harmed his case. However, the court decided that since no major errors were found in the trial, his lawyer’s performance could not be considered ineffective. In the end, the court found no grounds to change the original decision. They determined that the trial was fair despite Smith's complaints, and his life sentences would remain. The mandate for this decision was ordered to be issued immediately.
F-2007-200
In OCCA case No. F-2007-200, Jamie Cruz appealed his conviction for Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child Under Sixteen. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. One judge dissented. The case involved Jamie Cruz, who was found guilty on two counts of engaging in inappropriate conduct with an eight-year-old boy named T.M. Cruz was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for each count, to be served concurrently. The case had a long history of delays and court proceedings before it finally went to trial. During the trial, the evidence included Cruz’s admissions made during a polygraph examination he took while on probation. His defense argued that these admissions were wrongly obtained and that the trial court made errors in not considering his motion to suppress these statements. The trial court denied requests for continuances which the defense claimed were needed to prepare adequately for trial. Several arguments were made on appeal, including claims that the trial court should have suppressed the admissions made during the polygraph test because it violated his right against self-incrimination. Cruz argued that the compulsion to take the polygraph test because of his probation created a situation where he did not have a true choice, as refusing to comply could lead to his imprisonment. The court ruled that Cruz's rights were not violated. They said he had failed to assert his privilege against self-incrimination when he did not refuse to answer questions during the polygraph. The majority opinion found the polygraph examination was part of the conditions of his probation, and thus the admissions were not compelled in a manner that would invalidate them. Cruz also argued about other evidentiary issues during the trial, including the admission of prior bad acts as evidence and restrictions on jury selection. The court noted that while some of the trial court’s actions could be seen as problematic, they did not rise to the level of prejudice needed to overturn the conviction. In conclusion, while the court affirmed the convictions, they found that Cruz should not have received the life sentences as structured and directed that the case be sent back for proper resentencing under the relevant laws, as the previous sentencing did not follow the correct statutory guidance.
F 2003-196
In OCCA case No. F 2003-196, Joe Dean Meadows appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One member of the court dissented. Joe Dean Meadows was tried for First Degree Murder after a jury found him guilty. The trial took place in Oklahoma County District Court, and the jury decided he should be sentenced to life in prison. After the trial, Meadows appealed the decision because he believed there had been many mistakes. He claimed several things went wrong during his trial: 1. Meadows argued that there was not enough proof to show he was guilty of First Degree Murder. 2. He said that his statements to the police should not have been allowed in court because they were taken after an illegal arrest, and he did not receive proper warnings about his rights. 3. He also believed he could not question his co-defendant's confession, which mentioned him as guilty. 4. He thought his lawyer did not do a good job defending him. 5. Finally, he claimed that all the mistakes together meant he did not get a fair trial. The court looked carefully at all the claims made by Meadows. They agreed that allowing his co-defendant's confession was wrong because it violated his right to confront the witness against him. A law called the Sixth Amendment gives people the right to question witnesses during their trial, and this was not respected in Meadows' case. The court also agreed that Meadows should have received warnings about his rights before speaking to the police. They found that the police did not follow proper procedures, so his statements should not have been used in the trial. The judges felt that the combination of these two mistakes could have affected the outcome of the trial and made it unfair. They decided that Meadows should get a new trial because these errors were serious. Since the court reversed the conviction, they did not consider the other arguments Meadows made. In conclusion, the court's decision meant Meadows would have another chance to prove his case in a new trial. The dissenting judge thought the trial court had correctly allowed Meadows' confession to be used, but agreed the co-defendant's statement was a problem that needed to be fixed.