Abusive Head Trauma Archives

F-2017-1293

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 12, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1293, Melissa D. Clark appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder-Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction, and one judge dissented. Melissa was found guilty of First Degree Murder-Child Abuse after a trial by jury. The jury recommended a life sentence, which the court agreed to. Melissa was accused of causing the death of a four-month-old baby while running a daycare. During the trial, evidence showed that Melissa lost her temper and shook the baby, then threw her into a bouncy seat, causing the baby to hit her head and become injured. The baby later died from these injuries. Melissa argued that the evidence was not strong enough to prove she murdered the baby. However, the court concluded that a reasonable person could find her guilty based on the evidence presented. They looked at her own statements to the police, where she admitted to shaking and throwing the baby. Medical experts testified that the baby's injuries were serious and consistent with such actions. Melissa also claimed that her statements to the police should not have been included in the trial because she was not told she had a right to remain silent and a lawyer present, according to a legal ruling called Miranda. The court decided that she was not in a position where she was in custody and therefore, the police did not need to give her those warnings. Additionally, Melissa wanted the jury to be given the option to consider a lesser charge of second-degree manslaughter instead of murder. She argued that her actions could have been seen as an accident. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest her actions were anything but willful and malicious. They concluded that throwing a baby was not something a reasonable person would consider negligent. Finally, Melissa challenged her life sentence, claiming it was excessive. The court stated that the jury had the option to give a longer sentence but chose life instead, which they saw as fair given the circumstances of the case. They decided that nothing in her sentence shocked the conscience of the court. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence, meaning they agreed with the verdict and the punishment decided by the jury.

F-2017-1215

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 5, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1215, Ganey Marques Fairley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Fairley’s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Fairley was found guilty of abusing a child and neglecting them. The trial took place in Tulsa County, where the jury gave Fairley a long sentence. Fairley's appeal brought up several concerns about how the trial was conducted, particularly pointing out that the prosecutor acted inappropriately. The first issue was about the prosecutor’s behavior during the trial, which Fairley claimed made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor mentioned past abuse claims related to him when questioning an expert witness and kept bringing it up during her closing statements. Fairley argued that this made the jury think he was guilty of past actions instead of focusing on the current case. The court found that the way the prosecutor questioned the expert did indeed go too far and included too much information that shouldn’t have been brought to the jury's attention. They agreed that this could have influenced the jury's decision and may have negatively affected the fairness of the trial. While the court believed that the evidence against Fairley was strong enough to still call him guilty, they recognized that the prosecutor's actions had created an unfair situation, especially during the part where the jury decided on the punishment. In conclusion, the court decided they would keep Fairley’s guilty verdict but would send the case back to be resentenced, as they felt the previous sentencing might have been tainted by the improper actions of the prosecutor. The dissenting judge thought that if the prosecutor's behavior was indeed so wrong, it should affect the conviction itself, not just the sentence.