Closing Arguments

F-2014-939

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-939, Ryan Lee Nixon appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In a published decision, the court decided to uphold Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing but reversed his conviction for Possession. One judge dissented. Nixon was found guilty after a trial, where the jury determined he should serve fifteen years for Manufacturing and two years for Possession, alongside hefty fines. However, the judge suspended one of the fines and ordered the sentences to run together. Nixon's appeal included two main arguments. First, he argued that there wasn't enough evidence to show he possessed methamphetamine found in a bedroom. The court agreed with this argument. They explained that having drugs in a place doesn't mean the person had control over them unless there are other facts to prove possession. The court found there wasn't enough evidence to support the idea that Nixon had control over the drugs. Second, Nixon claimed the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments that were unfair. However, the court decided that these comments were acceptable and did not affect the trial's fairness since they were part of the argument about the evidence. In conclusion, while Nixon's conviction for Manufacturing was upheld, the court reversed his conviction for Possession and ordered that charge to be dismissed.

Continue ReadingF-2014-939

F-2013-1129

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1129, Aaron Mitchell Stigleman appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involves Aaron Stigleman, who shot and killed his mother in Elk City, Oklahoma, on February 13, 2013. At the time of the incident, he lived with his girlfriend and mother, both of whom had a history of drug use, specifically methamphetamine. Aaron was believed to be suffering from paranoia and hallucinations due to his drug use leading up to the shooting. Witnesses, including his girlfriend, testified that he accused them of trying to kill him before he shot his mother in the head. During his trial, Stigleman's attorneys failed to secure an expert witness to help argue that he was under the influence of methamphetamine and not in control of his actions at the time of the crime. They tried to get funding for an expert, but their requests were either late or not sufficiently justified. As a result, they could not present an argument related to his mental state or introduce expert testimony that could aid in the defense of insanity or diminished capacity. The court noted that Stigleman's behavior before, during, and after the incident indicated the possibility of a serious mental health issue caused by drug use, which warranted an expert’s evaluation. The silence of an expert on the mental health issues surrounding his drug use could have made a significant difference in the outcome. The court ruled that Stigleman’s attorneys did not adequately represent him by failing to present a complete defense. The decision emphasized that the right to present a complete defense is constitutionally guaranteed. Based on these findings, the court deemed it necessary to grant Stigleman a new trial to allow for proper evaluation of his mental state. While one judge expressed disagreement, arguing that the defense had not shown that the lack of expert testimony prejudiced Stigleman's case, the majority concluded that the claims and evidence presented merited a reversal and a new opportunity for a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1129

F-2011-1054

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-1054, Michael Don Bryant appealed his conviction for Grand Larceny. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Bryant's conviction and sentence but ordered that his Judgment and Sentence be corrected to accurately reflect the crime he was convicted of. One judge dissented. Michael Don Bryant had a trial by jury and was found guilty of Grand Larceny in Logan County. He was sentenced to one year in prison and had to pay a fine. After the trial, Bryant appealed, claiming a few mistakes happened during his trial. First, he said that the prosecutor made some unfair comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Bryant believed that the way the prosecutor spoke about his defense was wrong and led the jury to be biased against him. However, the court did not agree that these comments made the trial unfair. Second, he argued that a police officer gave evidence that should not have been allowed in the trial. The officer talked about the surveillance cameras and the cables that were involved in the case. Again, the court found that while the officer's comments might have seemed odd, they did not prove to be a big mistake in the trial. Lastly, Bryant pointed out that there was a problem with the official documents after his trial. The papers said he was convicted of embezzlement, but he was actually found guilty of Grand Larceny. Bryant wanted the court to fix this mistake and to make sure he got credit for time he had already served in jail. The court agreed that there was a mistake in the official documents and sent the case back to fix the paperwork. However, they kept Bryant's conviction and sentence the same.

Continue ReadingF-2011-1054

F-2009-1067

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-1067, Embry Jay Loftis appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Loftis's Judgment but modify his Sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Loftis was found guilty by a jury and received a punishment of forty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. He appealed for several reasons. First, he believed that he was unfairly denied the chance to present witnesses who could help his case. Second, he felt that representing himself during the trial was not properly allowed since the court didn’t check if he was capable of doing so. He also argued that the jury should not have been allowed to consider his past convictions for enhancing his punishment because they were part of the same event. Loftis claimed that missing written jury instructions meant he couldn't fully contest the second part of the trial. He also stated that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing arguments that hurt his chances of a fair trial. Additionally, he questioned if there was enough evidence to prove he had possession of the drugs. Lastly, he thought that all the errors together should lead to a new trial or change in sentencing. After reviewing everything, the court found that while Loftis’ trial was not perfect, the errors did not warrant a reversal of the conviction. However, because of some issues with the sentencing in light of his past convictions and prosecutor comments, they reduced his sentence to thirty years instead of forty. The court maintained that Loftis had enough information to prepare for his appeal, even without the written jury instructions.

Continue ReadingF-2009-1067

F 2004-1124

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1124, the appellant appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Keith William Matson, who was convicted in Garvin County for shooting with the intent to kill. On May 17, 2004, he chose to have a judge decide his case instead of a jury. However, when the judge made the decision on August 10, 2004, Mr. Matson was not present, and he did not get the chance to hear closing arguments from his lawyer before the verdict was given. Mr. Matson raised a number of issues in his appeal. He argued that the judge should not have been able to make orders after a certain date, that the way the judge found him guilty was not allowed by Oklahoma law, and that he was not there when the judgment was announced. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because of the unusual way the trial was conducted and that he did not get good legal help. The appeals court looked closely at what happened in the trial. It noted that after an earlier attempt to have a jury trial in October 2003 ended in a mistrial because the jury could not agree, Mr. Matson was advised by his lawyer to waive the right to a jury and allow the judge to review transcripts of the earlier trial. However, the law clearly states that a defendant must be present and allowed to have closing arguments during a trial, which did not happen in Mr. Matson's case. Because of these issues, the appeals court decided that Mr. Matson’s conviction needed to be reversed, and he deserved a new trial. The court stated that it was important to make sure that every defendant has a fair trial and their rights are fully protected. The decision made by the judge during the last trial was found to be a serious mistake, which led to the court ruling in favor of a new trial for Mr. Matson. In summary, the court found that the procedure used in Mr. Matson's trial did not follow the law and was unfair, which is why they reversed the conviction and called for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2004-1124