Defense of Another Archives

M-2018-267

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 8, 2019
Post category:M

**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **ROBERT AARON RODGERS,** **Appellant,** **V.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Summary Opinion** **KUEHN, VICE PRESIDING JUDGE:** On January 17, 2017, Appellant was charged in Grady County District Court with Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) in Case No. CM-2017-36. Appellant was found guilty following a jury trial and the Honorable Timothy A. Brauer, Special Judge, sentenced him according to the jury's recommendation to a $1,000 fine. Appellant appeals. Appellant raises three propositions of error in support of his appeal: **I.** Mr. Rodgers was denied a fair trial because the trial court refused to instruct on his theories of defense. **II.** The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial expert testimony on domestic abuse was plain error entitling Mr. Rodgers to a new trial. **III.** The audio tape sponsored by Cindy Trapp failed to meet the requisites for admissibility. Admission of this evidence denied Mr. Rodgers a fair trial. After thorough consideration of the entire record before us, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits, and briefs, we find that the law and evidence do not require relief. **Proposition I**: Appellant argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court denied his request for jury instructions on defense of another and defense of property. Decisions denying requested jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Appellant fails to establish that any unlawful interference with his property occurred or was imminent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying these instructions. **Proposition II**: Appellant contends that the testimony of Amanda Grayson, an expert on domestic violence, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant did not object to the testimony at trial, waiving appellate review except for plain error. The expert testimony was relevant and provided insight into the victim's behavior and Appellant's intent. Thus, Proposition II is without merit. **Proposition III**: Appellant challenges the admission of a duplicate recording of a conversation based on the best evidence rule. Appellant objected on the basis of relevance rather than the best evidence rule, and thus has waived that issue. No genuine question regarding the authenticity of the duplicate was established, and the trial court took steps to ensure the jury was not misled by the recording. Therefore, Proposition III is denied. **Decision**: The Judgment and Sentence of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the filing of this decision. **APPEARANCES** **COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT** ED GEARY **COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT** DAVID AUTRY **COUNSEL FOR STATE** NATALIA LEVCHENKO MIKE HUNTER KATHERINE MORELLI **OPINION BY**: KUEHN, V.P.J. **LEWIS, P.J.: CONCUR** **LUMPKIN, J.: CONCUR** **HUDSON, J.: CONCUR** **ROWLAND, J.: CONCUR** **RA/F** --- This summary captures the key elements of the case involving Appellant Robert Aaron Rodgers, the propositions of error raised, and the court's analysis and decisions, providing a streamlined understanding of the court's ruling.

F-2017-892

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2019
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-892, David Lee Seely appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. David Seely was found guilty of murdering Jackie Tyler Wesnidge during a fight that escalated in a car. Seely and Misty Dawn Benefield had left the house they were staying in after an argument between Wesnidge and Benefield. Seely, who had previously expressed strong feelings for Benefield, ended up stabbing Wesnidge seventeen times after a confrontation in the car. After the murder, Seely and Benefield crashed the car and tried to escape on foot. They were eventually found by the police. Seely claimed several errors during his trial, including the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on certain defenses, the exclusion of evidence he wanted to present, the admission of graphic photographs, and issues of prosecutorial misconduct. He also argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed Seely's arguments and found that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on defenses like defense of another or voluntary intoxication, as there was no sufficient evidence to support those claims. It also determined that the evidence excluded by the court was not necessary for understanding the case, and that the photographs admitted were relevant to the crime. Prosecutorial misconduct claims were examined, yet the court concluded these did not significantly harm Seely's right to a fair trial. Finally, it ruled that his counsel performed adequately, and there were no grounds for claiming he received ineffective representation. The court affirmed Seely's conviction, finding all claims of error were without merit.

F-2011-366

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 12, 2012
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-366, Tony Ray Gipson appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Tony Gipson was found guilty of murdering Victor Berryhill by stabbing him multiple times during an argument at a housing complex. The argument arose after tensions escalated between Gipson's brother and Berryhill. Earlier in the night, Gipson had an altercation with his girlfriend, after which he left. When he returned, he saw his brother involved in an argument with Berryhill, which prompted him to stab Berryhill before kicking him. During the trial, Gipson tried to argue that he was acting in defense of his brother, claiming that he was provoked. He raised several issues on appeal, including a challenge to the state’s jurisdiction based on his Indian heritage and the property being classified as Indian country. The court found that the property did not meet the criteria to be considered Indian country under federal law, concluding that the state had jurisdiction to prosecute Gipson. Gipson also argued that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by his co-defendant, but the court determined that these statements were not reliable or relevant. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding jury instructions on self-defense or the admission of evidence regarding a prior domestic dispute involving Gipson, even though this evidence may have harmed his chances during sentencing. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but decided that Gipson's harsh sentence was likely influenced by the improper admission of evidence relating to his character, which led to the decision to vacate the sentence and order resentencing.

F-2009-399

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 15, 2011
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.