Evidence Insufficiency

F-2009-530

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-530, Jacinda Simone Osborne appealed her conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify her conviction to Second Degree Robbery. No one dissented. Osborne was found guilty of robbing someone in Tulsa County. The jury said she should serve fifteen years in prison and pay a $5000 fine. She felt that the trial did not go well for her. She raised three main points that she thought were errors. First, she believed the court should have explained to the jury what serious bodily injury meant. Second, she thought the jury should have been given the option to consider a lesser crime, Second Degree Robbery. Third, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to support the serious charge of First Degree Robbery. The court reviewed everything carefully. They looked at the facts of the case and the laws. They agreed with Osborne on her third point. Even though the victim was hurt during the robbery, the proof did not show that the robbery met the higher standard needed for First Degree Robbery. There were no serious injuries or threats that would elevate the crime from Second to First Degree. So, the court changed her conviction to Second Degree Robbery, which is a lesser charge. The court said her original sentence would stay the same. This means that while the serious charge was changed, she would still serve fifteen years in prison and pay the fine. Since they found merit in her third point, they did not need to decide on the first two points she raised. The conclusion was that Osborne's conviction was modified, but the punishment was upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2009-530

F-2007-987

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-987, Tony Brown appealed his conviction for Second Degree Burglary and Attempted Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Tony Brown was found guilty of breaking into a building and trying to steal a car. He was given a total sentence of 17 years in prison along with a $1,000 fine. Brown believed that he was not given a fair trial for several reasons. He said that the jury should have been told about a simpler crime related to the burglary and that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charge of attempted car theft. Brown also argued that a witness shouldn’t have been allowed to testify because it hurt his case. Additionally, he claimed that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him and that the prosecutor did things that were unfair. After looking at everything, the court found that Brown should have been given information about the simpler crime of unlawful entry, and that the jury should have considered that first. They also felt that the testimony from a detective saying Brown was lying was too much and unfairly harmed his chance to have a fair trial. Because of these issues, the court decided to reverse Brown’s convictions and send the case back for a new trial, where he could have a chance to present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2007-987

F-2005-440

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-440, Zachary Michael Hudson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Zachary Hudson was tried by a jury for First Degree Murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of First Degree Manslaughter. They recommended a punishment of twenty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The trial judge followed this recommendation when he sentenced Hudson. After the trial, Hudson raised several points of error in his appeal. He claimed he was not given a fair trial because he thought the court was too involved and was biased toward the State. However, the court found that the judge was simply ensuring that witnesses understood the questions and did not show any partiality. Hudson also argued that there wasn't enough evidence to support the conviction for manslaughter, and he believed the jury instructions were incorrect. The court found evidence that Hudson fought with the person who died, left, returned, and then ran over that person with his car. This evidence led the court to believe that the jury could find Hudson guilty, as they might think he acted out of anger or passion rather than by accident. Hudson’s last point was about not having the jury instructed on the 85% Rule, which explains how much of a sentence must be served before someone can be eligible for parole. The court agreed that the jury needed this information and decided to modify Hudson's sentence from twenty years to fifteen years in prison while keeping the $10,000 fine. In summary, the court affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence because they wanted to ensure that the jury had clear information about parole eligibility, which would help them make informed decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-440

RE 2002-0993

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2002-0993, a person appealed their conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the person's suspended sentence. One judge dissented. The case started when the person pled guilty in January 2000 and was given a ten-year suspended sentence, which meant they'd stay out of prison as long as they followed certain rules. However, in July 2002, the state claimed the person broke the rules by testing positive for methamphetamine during a drug test. During the hearing to decide if the suspended sentence should be revoked, the person's probation officer said that the test showed the person had methamphetamine in their system. The person then explained they had many health problems, including severe joint issues, high blood pressure, and a history of cancer. They also used a cough syrup prescribed by a doctor, which potentially contained ingredients that could cause a positive drug test. The probation officer, when asked, said he couldn’t be sure if the cough syrup was the reason for the positive test results. Because of this uncertainty about the cause of the positive test, the court found there wasn't enough proof that the person had broken probation rules. As a result, the court reversed the previous decision to revoke the suspended sentence, meaning the person did not have to serve that part of their sentence. The court instructed the lower court to dismiss the application to revoke.

Continue ReadingRE 2002-0993