Emotional Condition Archives

F-2008-1087

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 27, 2010
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2008-1087, Mitchell Dewayne Baker appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape and Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the order for restitution, remanding the case to the district court for a proper determination of the victim's loss. One judge dissented. Baker was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to ten years in prison for each offense, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. The trial court also required him to pay restitution. Baker raised several issues in his appeal, claiming that the court had made errors during the trial process. One major issue was about the restitution ordered by the trial court, which Baker argued lacked factual support. The court acknowledged that the trial judge has discretion in deciding restitution, but determined that the record did not provide enough information to support the amount that was initially ordered. Therefore, while the conviction stood, the restitution order was removed, and the case was sent back to determine the correct restitution amount. Baker also challenged the prosecution’s use of evidence from his past crimes, saying it was unfairly used to paint him as a bad person. The court ruled that this evidence was allowed to help show that Baker’s explanation of how the victim got hurt was not credible. This was because his past behavior was relevant to his defense. Another point raised by Baker dealt with how the prosecutor questioned witnesses about their feelings during and after the incidents. The court said this questioning was relevant to establish the elements needed to prove the charges against Baker. They found no error in how this evidence was presented as it was crucial to the prosecution's case. Lastly, Baker pointed to some statements made by the prosecutor regarding the burden of proof. The court found that any mistakes were not serious enough to affect the fairness of the trial, as the jury was correctly informed about the burden of proof at several points. Overall, while the court upheld Baker's convictions, they took issue with the restitution ordered and directed that it be reassessed to ensure a fair determination.

F 2004-773

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-773, Alfonzo Daniel appealed his conviction for Lewd Acts with a Child under Sixteen and Making Indecent Proposals to a Child under Sixteen. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mr. Daniel was charged with serious crimes in Oklahoma. He went to trial, where the jury found him guilty of two counts. He was given twenty years for each count, and the sentences were to be served one after the other, making it a total of forty years. Mr. Daniel thought the trial was unfair for many reasons and decided to appeal. He raised several complaints about what happened during the trial. He argued that a videotaped interview of him should not have been allowed because it was wrongly obtained. He also claimed the judge didn’t watch the whole tape before deciding it was involuntary. He felt that certain information, known as hearsay, was also improperly shared during the trial, and that some testimonies were included which didn’t really connect to his case. Mr. Daniel believed he couldn't properly defend himself because his questioning of the witness was limited and some rules given to the jury were unfair. After looking through all the records and arguments, the court agreed that the admission of the videotaped interview was a significant mistake. The court stated that this mistake was not minor and could have affected the jury’s decision. Therefore, they decided to send the case back for a new trial, where these mistakes could be corrected. The other points Mr. Daniel raised were not examined further since the first mistake was enough to warrant a new trial. The judge who disagreed believed that the errors made were not significant enough to change the outcome of the trial and felt the conviction should stand.