Exculpatory Evidence

F-2018-502

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-502, Randall Patrick Molloy appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Molloy's conviction. One justice dissented. Molloy was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for hurting a child, which is a serious crime. The jury decided he should go to prison for sixteen years and pay a fine of $5,000. However, the judge agreed to lessen his sentence by taking away three years, meaning he would only have to serve thirteen years in prison. Molloy raised two main problems with his trial. First, he argued that he didn't get a fair trial because the state didn't share an agreement with a co-defendant that might have helped his case. Second, he felt that instructions given to the jury were confusing and didn't help them understand the facts related to the co-defendant's earlier statements. The court reviewed all the evidence and listened to the arguments from both sides. They pointed out that for Molloy to get a new trial based on not receiving a fair trial, he had to show that there was a clear mistake that changed how the trial turned out. Ultimately, they found that there were no clear mistakes or errors in the trial. The court noted that the information about the co-defendant was known to Molloy's lawyer during the trial, and therefore, it did not affect the outcome negatively. Regarding the jury instructions, the court also concluded that those instructions did not clearly cause any problems that could change the trial's result. The jury had enough information to make a fair decision about Molloy's guilt based on the evidence presented. In summary, because the court found that there were no serious mistakes during the trial, they decided to uphold the original decision made against Molloy.

Continue ReadingF-2018-502

F-2017-153

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-153, Crawley appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder, Felony Eluding, Second Degree Burglary, and Possession of Burglary Tools. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the exclusion of key evidence violated Crawley's right to a fair trial, leading to the reversal of his convictions for Counts 1 and 2. A judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-153

F-2016-1094

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-1094, Robert Lawrence Long appealed his conviction for First Degree Felony Murder and Possession of a Firearm After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Long's convictions but vacate the court costs imposed on the possession charge. No one dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2016-1094

F-2015-531

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-53, Dennis Ray Runnels appealed his conviction for Unlawful Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Runnels was convicted after a jury trial, where he was found guilty of distributing meth. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years imprisonment, with one year of post-imprisonment supervision, and ordered him to pay a fee for a court-appointed attorney and other costs. Runnels raised several issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the state did not show a complete chain of custody for the meth. The court found that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Runnels was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also determined that Runnels had not shown any plain error regarding this issue. Second, Runnels argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his conviction. However, the court ruled there was sufficient evidence, including testimony and recordings from a controlled buy, for the jury to reach their conclusion. Third, he claimed the state failed to provide evidence that could have helped his case. He said the prosecutor did not correct a witness’s false testimony about prior convictions. The court found no wrongdoing by the state and ruled that Runnels had not shown how this affected the trial's outcome. In his fourth claim, Runnels argued that the jury was incorrectly instructed on punishment. The court agreed and found it was a plain error, which required modification of his sentence. Runnels also claimed the jury was led to think about probation and parole during the trial, but since the punishment was modified based on the previous claim, this point became moot. Regarding the claim that his sentence was excessive, the court agreed that it should be modified due to the instructional error and reduced it to 10 years with the same supervision and fees. Runnels also said his attorney was ineffective in several ways. However, the court found that these claims were moot because of the prior decision to modify his sentence. Lastly, Runnels asked the court to look at the overall errors during his trial to see if they denied him a fair outcome. The court determined that since they did not find any sustained errors, this request was denied. In conclusion, Runnels's conviction was upheld, but his sentence was reduced to 10 years in prison with supervision, and he will still pay the attorney fees and costs.

Continue ReadingF-2015-531

S-2015-672

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA Case No. S-2015-672, the appellant appealed his conviction for Attempted First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to dismiss the State's appeal and deny the petition for writ of prohibition/mandamus. The dissenting opinion was noted by one member of the court. This case involves Jeremy Scott Niederbuhl, who was charged on December 13, 2013, for trying to break into a home. After attending a barbeque at the homeowner's house, Niederbuhl returned hours later and attempted to enter the home through a door and a window. The homeowner, Mr. Scott, fired shots, hitting Niederbuhl, who then went to the hospital and remained there for two weeks. The legal process began in 2013 when the charges were filed. However, Niederbuhl only found out about the charges in late 2014 when he turned himself in for a different issue. His lawyer argued that there were important text messages between Niederbuhl and the homeowner that could help his case, but the State did not provide this evidence, leading to a significant delay in the trial. On July 17, 2015, the trial court dismissed the case, agreeing that Niederbuhl's rights to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to the State’s lack of action and bad faith. The court believed the State did not follow its obligation to turn over evidence, which was a significant factor in its decision to dismiss the case. The State disagreed with the trial court's dismissal and filed a motion to reconsider the ruling. However, the trial court decided it couldn’t consider this motion because the State already filed an appeal. The State then appealed the dismissal, claiming the trial court made errors in its ruling and that the dismissal did not follow legal procedures. However, the court decided that the State’s appeal was not valid since it did not follow specific laws regarding when the State can appeal a dismissal. In addition to the appeal, the State also filed a petition requesting an order based on their belief that the trial court made mistakes in its rulings. However, the appellate court concluded that the State did not meet the requirements to get an extraordinary writ, which is a special type of order. In summary, the appellate court dismissed the State's appeal and told the case to go back to the District Court for further actions. The petition for the extraordinary writ was also denied, indicating that the appellate court found no legal basis for the State’s claims.

Continue ReadingS-2015-672

F-2012-951

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-951, Darrell Williams appealed his conviction for Sexual Battery and Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Darrell Williams was found guilty by a jury in Payne County of multiple counts, including Sexual Battery and two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. Although the jury had acquitted him of two other charges, he was sentenced to one year in jail for each conviction, with the sentences to run at the same time. Williams felt that his trial was unfair and raised several reasons, or propositions, for his appeal. Williams argued that the jury was unfairly influenced by outside information during their discussions, which he believed violated his right to a fair trial. He indicated that some jurors visited the scene of the crime without permission and discussed what they saw during their deliberations. The court agreed with his concern that such behavior could affect the jury's decision-making process. During the appeal, the court conducted an investigation to see if the jurors did indeed visit the crime scene and if they talked about it while deciding the case. Testimony revealed that several jurors had made those unauthorized visits and shared their observations. Since the details about the crime's location and lighting were crucial to whether the identification of Williams was accurate, the court concluded that exposure to such outside information during deliberations could have impacted the verdict. Additionally, Williams complained that a bailiff might have made comments about needing a unanimous verdict, which could have pressured the jurors. The trial court looked into this matter as well, but they ultimately found that it was not clear if such comments were made and whether they had any effect on the jurors' decisions. The court found serious enough mistakes in the trial process and decided that Williams did not receive a fair trial. This led them to reverse the earlier judgments against him and send the case back to the lower court for a possible new trial. In summary, the court's main reasons for reversing the convictions were the unauthorized jury visits to the crime scene and the potential influence of the bailiff's comments on the jury's verdict.

Continue ReadingF-2012-951

M-2012-416

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2012-416, #1 Richard Allen House II appealed his conviction for #2 Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #3 to reverse the conviction and send the case back for further proceedings. #4 One judge dissented. Richard Allen House II was found guilty after a trial without a jury. He was charged for having drug paraphernalia, which is against the law. The judge sentenced him to pay a fine of $250 and spend a year in jail, but he only had to serve 60 days in jail because the rest of his sentence was suspended as long as he followed certain rules. At the beginning of the case, Richard asked the court for a lawyer to help him, and the court agreed. However, later, his attorney wanted to stop helping Richard because they thought he could pay for a private lawyer. This happened after Richard posted bail and was said to be employed. But there was confusion because it was not clear whether the money was for this case or another case he had. Richard ended up representing himself, which means he did not have a lawyer to help him during the trial or the sentencing. After his trial, he asked for a lawyer to help with his appeal, but the judge did not appoint one, saying Richard had enough money to pay for a lawyer himself. This decision was questioned because there was no proper record showing that Richard understood he could still get a lawyer even though he had posted bail. Richard argued that it was wrong for his lawyer to leave and for him to have to represent himself without really understanding what that meant. The State, which is the side that brought the case against him, agreed that there was a problem because there was no formal record to show that Richard had given up his right to a lawyer. The court referred to earlier cases that showed it is important for defendants to have lawyers. If they can't pay for one, they must be given a lawyer unless they clearly waive that right. Since the proper steps weren't taken in Richard's case, the court decided his conviction should be reversed. They sent the case back to the lower court so they could decide if Richard still needed a lawyer or if he had given up that right properly. In summary, the decision noted that everyone deserves a fair chance to defend themselves with legal help, and if they can't afford a lawyer, they should still get one if they need it. The court made it clear that without the correct procedures being followed, they could not allow the conviction to stand.

Continue ReadingM-2012-416

F-2011-473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-473, Joseph Randal Arndt appealed his conviction for Robbery with a Firearm. In a published decision, the court decided that Arndt's right to cross-examine his co-defendant was denied, which required a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Arndt, his co-defendant, and another man who planned to buy marijuana from a person named Ouni. Instead of a legal transaction, things turned violent when Arndt's accomplice pulled a gun and shot Ouni when he thought he was cheated. Arndt was in the car during this event and was accused of participating in the robbery. During the trial, Arndt argued that he should have been allowed to question his co-defendant about important details that could affect his case. These details included accusations that Arndt had a shotgun and was told to push Ouni out of the vehicle. Arndt's lawyer objected when this information was presented during the trial, but the judge denied the request to cross-examine the co-defendant. Arndt maintained that both he and the co-defendant claimed to have no knowledge of any robbery plan. When the co-defendant testified against Arndt, the court should have allowed Arndt to cross-examine him. The court found that the judge's failure to do so was a serious error that harmed Arndt's rights. In conclusion, the decision emphasized that when someone testifies against you in court, you have the right to question them. Since Arndt was not given this opportunity, the court decided that he deserves a new trial where he can fully defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2011-473

F 2010-1128

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2010-1128, Chad Allen Turner appealed his conviction for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine) and conspiracy to traffic a controlled dangerous substance (methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and affirm the conviction for conspiracy to traffic. One judge dissented. Chad Allen Turner was found guilty of two crimes involving methamphetamine. He was given two years in prison for one crime and fifteen years for the other, and he was ordered to serve these sentences one after the other. Turner believed his convictions were not fair for several reasons. He argued that there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty of conspiracy to traffic methamphetamine. He also claimed that the prosecutors did not properly show how they handled the evidence of the drugs. Additionally, he felt the prosecutors did not tell the jury about any deals made with witnesses and made mistakes during their closing arguments that hurt his chance for a fair trial. Turner raised several other points about why he thought he should not have been convicted. He argued that he was punished twice for the same crime and that he didn’t get enough notice about the charges against him. He also believed he should have been given instructions about a lesser charge related to the crime. He felt that the court made mistakes during the trial that made it hard for him to get a fair outcome. After looking at all the facts and arguments presented, the court decided that there wasn’t enough proof to uphold one of the conspiracy charges against Turner. They agreed with his argument that there was only one conspiracy agreement, which made it unfair to convict him of both conspiracy charges. Therefore, the court reversed the conviction linked to that charge. However, the court found that there was enough evidence for the conspiracy to traffic charge, and they affirmed that conviction. In the end, the court told Turner that one of the charges against him was overturned and the other charge stood. The dissenting judge had a different opinion about some parts of the decision. In summary, the court agreed to reverse one of Turner's convictions but kept the other, affecting the total time he would spend in prison.

Continue ReadingF 2010-1128

F-2009-535

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-535, Joseph Lander Smith appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (cocaine base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Smith's sentence from twenty-five years to seventeen years imprisonment. One judge dissented. Joseph Lander Smith was found guilty by a jury for distributing a controlled substance after he had a previous felony conviction. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, which the judge agreed to, making it run consecutively with another sentence he was already serving. Smith raised several arguments in his appeal. He first claimed that he didn't get a fair trial because the prosecutor didn’t share important information that could have helped his case. The information was about a witness who helped the state. This witness had her own past troubles with the law but the jury was not told about them. Smith argued that this was wrong because it might have changed how the jury viewed that witness's testimony. Next, Smith said it wasn't right for the jury to know about his previous suspended sentence during the trial. He believed that mentioning this past sentence by the prosecutor made the jury biased against him and influenced the punishment they decided on. The jury even had questions about how his past might relate to their decision, which showed they were affected by this information. Smith also argued that his lawyer didn’t do a good job defending him by failing to investigate these issues properly. However, the court thought that the evidence against him was strong and that the errors made during the trial, while present, did not change his guilt. Still, the judge decided that the combination of these errors meant that Smith should not serve the full twenty-five years, so his sentence was reduced to seventeen years instead. Ultimately, the court affirmed Smith's conviction but changed his sentence to make it lighter, acknowledging the mistakes made during the trial without completely overturning the conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2009-535

F-2005-963

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-963, the appellant appealed his conviction for using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court modified the conviction to felony malicious injury to property instead. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, Larry Roger Watts, was found guilty by a jury of a crime involving firing a weapon from a vehicle. The jury decided he should serve three years in prison and pay an $8,000 fine. Watts disagreed with the decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he believed there was not enough evidence to support the charge against him. He claimed that since nobody was near where he fired the weapon, it wasn't a real drive-by shooting, which is meant to endanger people, not property. He also pointed out that the law was changed, and air guns were no longer considered weapons that could be fired from a vehicle under this specific law. Secondly, the appellant argued that the way he was arrested was not legal, meaning the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court. He also mentioned that important recordings from the police that could have helped his case were erased, which he felt was unfair. While looking at all these claims, the court decided that the original conviction for a drive-by shooting could not stand since no one was harmed during the incident. However, the court recognized that damages to property did happen, which led them to change the conviction to felony malicious injury to property. This new conviction came with a lesser punishment: two years in prison and a fine of $1,000 instead of the earlier sentence. The judges concluded that allowing the state to proceed under different theories of the law was appropriate. They determined that Watts was not surprised or prejudiced by this change. In the end, the court ruled in favor of modifying the conviction and sentence, agreeing that it was the right way to handle the case based on the evidence available. They also stated that there was no plain error regarding the prosecutor's comments or about the contention of the erased tapes. Overall, the case showed how legal decisions can evolve based on the circumstances and the interpretations of the law.

Continue ReadingF-2005-963

F-2005-597

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-597, Keandre Lee Sanders appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modified the sentences for the robbery and shooting charges. One judge dissented. Here’s a simple summary of what happened: Keandre Lee Sanders was found guilty by a jury of three serious crimes. He was sentenced to a total of 60 years after the jury decided how long he should go to prison for each crime. He thought the trial went unfairly and wanted to change his sentence. He had three main reasons for his appeal: 1. He asked the judge to delay the trial because he found new evidence that might help him. His lawyer thought there was a witness who could help, but the judge said no to delaying. The court believed waiting wouldn’t help because the witness was not cooperating. The court looked at everything and decided the lawyer did their best, so they did not grant this appeal point. 2. He believed that the charge of having a gun should not count separately from the other two charges, arguing that they were connected. The court found that having the gun was a separate act from the robbery and the shooting, so they denied this appeal as well. 3. The last point he made was that the jury was not told he would have to serve a certain amount of time before he could be considered for parole. After some review, the court agreed that he should have been told this but decided it was not enough to change his convictions. They did, however, change his sentences, reducing them from fifteen years to twelve years for the robbery charge and from forty years to thirty years for the shooting charge. The sentence for the firearm possession remained the same. The final decision was that while the court agreed with the convictions, they made changes to the length of two sentences. The court issued its order to finalize the decision after they filed their ruling.

Continue ReadingF-2005-597

F 2005-603

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-603, Maurice Ladon Miller appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Conspiracy to Commit a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Maurice Ladon Miller was found guilty of serious crimes, including murder. The jury decided he should go to prison for life for the murder and for six years for conspiracy. The sentences were to be served at the same time and also added to a federal sentence he was already serving. After this, Miller appealed his case. Miller had two main arguments. First, he believed his confession to the police was not voluntary because he thought it was protected by an immunity agreement. Second, he felt he couldn’t present his defense because his lawyer was not allowed to show the jury a recording where a co-defendant said Miller was not involved in the murder. The court looked carefully at both of these arguments. They found that the confession was voluntary. Even though there was some confusion about the immunity agreement, the police had informed Miller that it did not protect him from state charges, and he waived his rights willingly. Therefore, they decided that there was no error in admitting his confession. For the second argument, the court examined the situation where Miller's lawyer recorded the co-defendant admitting to the crime but saying Miller was not involved. This recording was not allowed to be shown to the jury, which the court found to be a mistake. They explained that the recording could have been helpful for Miller's defense, as it contradicted the claim that he was involved in the murder. The absence of this evidence might have affected the trial. Ultimately, the court reversed Miller's convictions and ordered a new trial because they believed the exclusion of the co-defendant’s statement could have led to a different outcome. The dissenting judge felt the evidence against Miller was strong, and the trial court made the right choice in excluding the co-defendant's statement. Thus, the case will be retried to ensure that Miller has a chance to present all relevant evidence in his defense.

Continue ReadingF 2005-603

F-2004-389

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-389, the appellant appealed his conviction for robbery by force. 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 James Stephen Richardson, who was found guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined $1500. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not do a good job and that this impacted his defense. He claimed his lawyer failed to challenge a juror, did not question how he was identified by the victims, and did not find evidence that could help prove he was innocent. The court looked into Richardson's claims and decided to hold a special hearing to investigate his last point about ineffective assistance of counsel. During this hearing, it was revealed that there were certain jail policies regarding the clothing of inmates that were not properly investigated by Richardson’s attorney. The evidence showed that the items of clothing could not be released under the jail's rules, which could have helped Richardson’s case. The district court agreed that the lawyer did not conduct a reasonable investigation about this clothing policy. Because of this failure, the judge believed that the defense had a weaker case and that if this information had been presented, the outcome of the trial could have been different. The court decided that Richardson's attorney did not provide adequate legal help, which is why they reversed the original judgment. In summary, Richardson's case was sent back for a new trial because the court found that his lawyer did not do enough to support his defense, particularly regarding important evidence about the clothing policy at the jail.

Continue ReadingF-2004-389

F-2001-985

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-985, Karyn Jo Webb appealed her conviction for Injury to a Minor Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Karyn Jo Webb was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child and was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. She believed her lawyer did not help her properly during the trial. Karyn said her lawyer did not look into important medical evidence that might show she was innocent. She also thought her lawyer did not question the state’s medical experts well and missed gathering good character references that could help her side of the case. The court looked carefully at all the information from the trial and decided that Karyn’s lawyer did not perform well. They concluded that he was not able to act as a good defense lawyer, which is why Karyn should get a new trial. The main issue was that without a medical expert, her lawyer could not effectively fight against the accusations that she harmed the child. Therefore, the court said Karyn deserved another chance to prove her case.

Continue ReadingF-2001-985