Expert Testimony

F-2017-1001

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1001, Jacob Darrell Tyre appealed his conviction for child abuse and child neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. Jacob Darrell Tyre was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for child abuse and child neglect. He received a sentence of eight years in prison for child abuse and twelve years for child neglect, with both sentences served back-to-back. He was also fined but the fines were later suspended. Tyre argued three main errors in his appeal. First, he claimed his lawyer had not effectively represented him because the lawyer admitted Tyre was guilty of child abuse without discussing it with him first. The court looked into this issue and found that the lawyer had actually talked to Tyre about this strategy beforehand, and Tyre approved it, even if he was not happy about it. Second, Tyre believed that the actions of the prosecutor made his trial unfair. However, the court found that there were no clear mistakes that affected the fairness of the trial. Third, Tyre challenged the testimony of a doctor who suggested that a child was abused. Since Tyre did not object to this during the trial, the court reviewed it for serious mistakes but found that the doctor's testimony was allowed. In the end, the court upheld Tyre's convictions and sentences, ordering that the decision be effective immediately.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1001

F-2017-1215

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1215, Ganey Marques Fairley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Fairley’s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Fairley was found guilty of abusing a child and neglecting them. The trial took place in Tulsa County, where the jury gave Fairley a long sentence. Fairley's appeal brought up several concerns about how the trial was conducted, particularly pointing out that the prosecutor acted inappropriately. The first issue was about the prosecutor’s behavior during the trial, which Fairley claimed made it impossible for him to have a fair trial. He believed the prosecutor mentioned past abuse claims related to him when questioning an expert witness and kept bringing it up during her closing statements. Fairley argued that this made the jury think he was guilty of past actions instead of focusing on the current case. The court found that the way the prosecutor questioned the expert did indeed go too far and included too much information that shouldn’t have been brought to the jury's attention. They agreed that this could have influenced the jury's decision and may have negatively affected the fairness of the trial. While the court believed that the evidence against Fairley was strong enough to still call him guilty, they recognized that the prosecutor's actions had created an unfair situation, especially during the part where the jury decided on the punishment. In conclusion, the court decided they would keep Fairley’s guilty verdict but would send the case back to be resentenced, as they felt the previous sentencing might have been tainted by the improper actions of the prosecutor. The dissenting judge thought that if the prosecutor's behavior was indeed so wrong, it should affect the conviction itself, not just the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1215

D-2014-153

  • Post author:
  • Post category:D

In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]

Continue ReadingD-2014-153

F-2018-194

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-194, the appellant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve and child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. The appellant, William Harold Pittman, was convicted by a jury for serious crimes against children. The jury gave him a punishment of thirty years in prison for each crime, and both sentences were meant to be served one after the other. The judge who oversaw the trial also ordered the appellant to pay various costs and fees. Pittman appealed his conviction, claiming that the trial court made a mistake by allowing expert testimony about something called the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He argued that this evidence was not relevant and should not have been allowed, saying it was not proven to be reliable. The court explained that the decision to allow expert evidence is usually up to the trial judge. If a specific objection is made during the trial, then the appeal cannot rely on a different argument later. Pittman did not object during the trial to the CSAAS evidence based on its relevance or reliability, which made his chance for appeal more difficult. To win an appeal based on a plain error, the appellant needs to show three things: that there was a real error, that it was obvious, and that the error affected the case's outcome. The court found that Pittman could not prove any such errors in this case. The court stated that previously, CSAAS had been accepted as reliable evidence in prior cases. This evidence can help explain why some children might take a long time to talk about the abuse or might change their statements after initially making claims. In this case, the court confirmed that the CSAAS evidence was relevant to the victim's delay in talking about the abuse. Pittman also claimed that there wasn't enough data to prove CSAAS was reliable and asked the court to reconsider accepting it as reliable evidence. However, the court refused to change its stance, stating that it would not revisit this issue. Lastly, Pittman argued that the CSAAS testimony was too supportive of the victim's story and could not be considered harmless. The court pointed out that this evidence was permissible because it only served to support what the victim and other witnesses testified about. The court ultimately found no errors in the trial regarding the way CSAAS evidence was handled, and therefore affirmed the judgments and sentences against Pittman.

Continue ReadingF-2018-194

F-2018-294

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-294, Alen Dean O'Bryant appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and sentence. One member dissented. Alen Dean O'Bryant was found guilty by a jury on multiple counts of sexually abusing a child. The jury decided to give him a life sentence for each count along with fines. The court confirmed these sentences would be served one after another and counted his time spent in jail. O'Bryant argued several points in his appeal. He said he did not get good help from his lawyer, which he believed hurt his case. He also felt that the court made mistakes by letting in certain evidence and testimonies, claiming some of it shouldn’t have been allowed. He said the prosecution was unfair and called him a liar during the trial. O'Bryant even argued that a law allowing children's hearsay statements in court was against the Constitution. When looking at his first point about his lawyer not being effective, the court checked to see if his lawyer had fallen short of what was required in professional conduct. The court found that the lawyer's actions were indeed within acceptable standards. No new hearing was needed on this point. For the second point, O'Bryant argued that the court wrongly allowed hearsay evidence. The court found that the trial judge had the right to admit this evidence and did not make a mistake in doing so. In his third point, he claimed that witness testimonies wrongly supported the victim's credibility. However, because he did not object at the time during the trial, the court reviewed merely for obvious mistakes and found no error. O'Bryant claimed next that the prosecutor had acted improperly by suggesting the victim was truthful while labeling him a liar. The court discovered that the prosecutor’s comments were reasonable and a response to the defense's arguments, ruling that there was no significant error. O'Bryant also argued that the law that allowed children's hearsay statements was unconstitutional. The court noted that it had already ruled this law was constitutional in earlier cases and saw no reason to look at it again. Finally, O'Bryant stated that all the mistakes taken together meant he did not get a fair trial and that he should be given a new trial. However, since the court found no individual errors that affected him significantly, they also ruled out the idea of cumulative errors. The court ultimately decided to uphold O'Bryant's conviction and denied his request for a hearing about his lawyer’s performance. The opinion was finalized, and the decision was ordered.

Continue ReadingF-2018-294

M-2018-267

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingM-2018-267

F-2017-1232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1232, Adrian Luis Walker appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and robbery by two or more persons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction on the robbery charge because it violated the law against being punished for the same crime more than once. The court affirmed the other parts of the sentence. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1232

F-2017-949

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-949, Montoyia Corbitt appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree-Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Montoyia Corbitt was tried for a crime that involved the death of another person. During her trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense. However, the jury found her guilty, and she was given a six-year prison sentence. The law said she had to serve at least 85% of her sentence before she could be considered for parole. Corbitt made three main arguments in her appeal. First, she believed the evidence was not enough to prove she did not act in self-defense. The court explained that self-defense is a reason someone can use force, but it has to be reasonable. They found there was enough evidence that showed Corbitt's fear was not reasonable and, therefore, not justified in using deadly force. Second, Corbitt argued that a police officer’s opinion in her trial influenced the jury and was not fair. The court reviewed this matter and decided that the officer's testimony was allowed because it was based on what he observed during the investigation. They concluded that his statements helped clarify what happened during the incident without directing the jury toward a specific conclusion. Third, Corbitt was concerned about a photograph that showed her face during a police interview. She thought it was not relevant and unfairly prejudiced her case. The court ruled the photo was relevant because it helped support her claim of self-defense. They believed the image added to the understanding of the situation rather than just being harmful to her. Ultimately, after looking at all the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the jury’s decision and affirmed her conviction.

Continue ReadingF-2017-949

F-2018-289

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-289, Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr., appealed his conviction for Lewd or Indecent Acts with a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentence. One judge dissented. Anthony Douglass Crisel, Jr. was found guilty by a jury for engaging in inappropriate conduct with a child. The jury decided that he should spend six years in prison, and he has to serve 85% of that time before he can ask for parole. Crisel claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during the trial, which he believed went against his rights. He said his attorney made mistakes in three important areas: not opposing a witness’s testimony, not bringing in a witness who was related to the victim, and not challenging the qualifications of an expert witness who testified against him. The court looked closely at these claims and the complete record of what happened during the trial. They explained that to show his lawyer was ineffective, Crisel needed to prove that his lawyer didn’t do their job well and that this affected the outcome of the case. The judges noted that there is a strong assumption that a lawyer’s actions are based on good judgment. For the first claim, Crisel argued his lawyer should have stopped a witness from talking about some old accusations against him. However, the court found that the information the witness shared was already given to the jury through other evidence. Therefore, the lawyer's choice to not object was a reasonable decision. For the second claim, Crisel wanted his brother to testify but did not show how having his brother's testimony would have helped him win the case. The court stated that the lawyer's decision to not call the brother was likely a strategic choice and they won’t question that. Lastly, regarding the expert witness, the court found that the lawyer did question the qualifications of this expert, and since many lawyers might handle this differently, having a different strategy does not necessarily mean the lawyer did a bad job. After reviewing everything, the court concluded that Crisel’s lawyer did not act ineffectively. The judges affirmed the decision of the lower court, and the request for more evidence or hearing on this issue was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2018-289

F-2016-375

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

This document is the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the appeal of James Stanford Poore from his convictions of four counts of First Degree Murder and two counts of Robbery with a Firearm, which occurred in Tulsa County District Court. The jury recommended sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder convictions and life imprisonment for the robbery charges. The opinion outlines the factual background of the case, including the brutal murders of four victims during a robbery and the subsequent evidence linking Appellant Poore and his brother Cedric Poore to the crime. Key pieces of evidence included witness testimonies, DNA analysis, and ballistic evidence connecting the Poores to both the murders and an earlier robbery. The appellate court addressed several propositions raised by Poore, reviewing the admission of expert testimony, the exclusion of certain third-party perpetrator evidence, the relevance of other crimes evidence, the legality of the search warrant executed at Poore's mother's residence, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence or denying Poore's requests for different evidence and upheld the sufficiency of the search warrant. The court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, providing a detailed legal rationale for its decisions. The final decision includes an order for the mandate to be issued upon the filing of this opinion. The judgment for both the defendant and the state was documented, with all judges concurring in the decision. For those interested in viewing or downloading the original document, a link is provided at the end of the summary.

Continue ReadingF-2016-375

F-2017-1140

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-1140, Michael Harold Denham appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery by Strangulation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Michael Harold Denham was found guilty of a crime related to domestic abuse. The jury, which is a group of people that decides if someone is guilty or not, recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. The judge who oversaw the trial followed this recommendation and also ordered that Denham pay some fees and receive credit for the time he had already spent in jail before the trial. Denham's appeal claimed that several mistakes had occurred during his trial. He listed five main points where he believed the trial had not been fair: 1. The trial court allowed the state to have an expert witness testify about domestic abuse. Denham argued that this was a mistake. 2. He said that one of the witnesses who testified about domestic violence was not properly qualified to do so. 3. Denham claimed that some evidence was admitted that should not have been according to the rules of evidence. 4. He argued that the court did not let his defense team ask questions about one juror, which meant they could not see if the juror was biased. 5. Finally, he said that all these mistakes happened together and made the whole trial unfair. The court looked closely at Denham's claims and the evidence from the trial. They decided that the court did not make errors that were significant enough to change the outcome of the trial. For the first point about the expert witness, the court ruled that Denham did not show why his defense would have benefited from having his own expert witness. His claim of needing a continuance (more time) to prepare for the trial was not justified because he could not show how it would have helped his case. For the second point, the court decided that the qualifications of the expert witness were acceptable. The judge found that the officer had enough training and experience in domestic violence matters to testify. Regarding the third point, Denham did not follow the right procedure to complain about the late disclosure of the expert witness. As a result, the court found no major violations that would affect the trial's fairness. For the fourth point, the court reviewed how the trial judge handled questions for the jurors. They found that the process was fair because the juror had given no indication beforehand that she would be biased. Lastly, for the fifth point about the overall fairness of the trial, the court did not agree that the combined claims could show any level of unfairness. They found no cumulative error that would merit a different outcome. In conclusion, the court upheld Denham's conviction, deciding that he received a fair trial and that the claims of error did not have enough merit to change the verdict. The appeal was denied, and the conviction was confirmed, meaning Denham would serve his sentence as decided by the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2017-1140

F-2017-849

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-849, Samuel Cosby appealed his conviction for assault and battery with a deadly weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction. One judge dissented. Samuel Cosby was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raised several arguments to claim that errors during the trial affected his right to a fair trial. First, Mr. Cosby argued that the trial court made a mistake by not having a pretrial hearing to check if the expert testimony about firearms was reliable. The court found no error in allowing the expert testimony because it is generally accepted in trials. Second, he claimed the firearms expert's analysis was flawed and unfair. However, the court decided that there was no plain error since the expert's opinion was based on accepted methods. Third, he argued that a phone call he made from jail should not have been used as evidence. While he objected in court, the judges felt the phone call was relevant because it showed he was aware of the situation. Fourth, Mr. Cosby said there were mistakes in how evidence was handled, particularly about the victim's injuries. The court ruled that the evidence was necessary for proving the case. Fifth, he felt the jury instructions were wrong because his request for an explanation about inconsistent statements was denied. The court explained that the victim's testimony was not inconsistent enough to require such an instruction. Lastly, Mr. Cosby claimed he did not receive effective help from his lawyer. The court found that since these errors did not actually happen, this claim was also not valid. The overall decision was that the judgment and sentence against Mr. Cosby were correct, and his appeals did not show any significant errors that affected the fairness of his trial.

Continue ReadingF-2017-849

F-2017-994

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-994, Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin appealed her conviction for Enabling Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. The case involved Holly Tegan Zuniga-Griffin, who was found guilty of enabling the abuse of her three-year-old son. The jury in Muskogee County decided she was guilty of this crime based on the evidence presented during the trial. She was sentenced to ten years in prison, following the jury's recommendation. Zuniga-Griffin raised several issues in her appeal. First, she argued that the law regarding child abuse was unclear and vague. However, the court found no reason to change its previous decisions on this issue and denied her claim. Next, she claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove she understood her child was in danger when she left him with her 17-year-old boyfriend. The court disagreed, stating there was enough evidence to show she should have known her child was at risk. Zuniga-Griffin had made inconsistent statements about how her son got hurt, and medical evidence indicated he had been physically abused. She also said she was denied a fair trial because the judge didn't instruct the jury properly. The court acknowledged that some jury instructions could have been appropriate, but overall, they did not think this affected the trial's fairness. Another point she raised was about a nurse giving an opinion in court when she didn't have the right qualifications. The court found that the nurse did have enough training and experience to testify about the injuries on the child, so they disagreed with Zuniga-Griffin's claim. Zuniga-Griffin contended that the prosecution failed to provide important evidence that could have helped her case. However, the court concluded that she was aware of the photos in question during the trial and did not attempt to use them, dismissing her argument. She also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job representing her, which negatively impacted her trial. But the court found her lawyer's decisions were reasonable and did not affect the outcome. Zuniga-Griffin then argued that her ten-year sentence was excessively harsh. The court noted that her son had suffered serious injuries, and her sentence was within what the law allowed, so they did not find it shocking. Finally, she stated that all the errors combined during the trial made it unfair. The court determined that the errors she identified did not, either separately or together, undermine her right to a fair trial. In the end, the decision of the trial court was upheld, meaning Zuniga-Griffin would serve her sentence as originally decided.

Continue ReadingF-2017-994

F 2014-3

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-3, Edwin Jermaine Daniels appealed his conviction for several serious crimes including burglary, robbery, kidnapping, and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the trial court's decisions but did vacate some of the fines associated with his sentences. One judge dissented. During the trial, Daniels was found guilty of multiple counts connected to violent crimes he committed with a co-defendant. The judge sentenced him to a total of many years in prison and imposed fines for each count. Daniels raised several issues on appeal, arguing that there were mistakes made during his trial that affected the fairness of the process. First, he claimed that the jury instructions were confusing and reduced the State’s burden to prove guilt. The court found that since there were no objections to the instructions during the trial, they did not affect the trial's result. Second, Daniels objected to being told the fines were mandatory, but the court found that this was also a mistake that the State admitted to; thus, the fines were removed for certain counts. He also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that comments made by the prosecutor during the trial unfairly influenced the jury. The court ruled that these comments did not significantly change the trial's outcome. Daniels further contended that he did not receive effective legal assistance. The court concluded that his lawyer's performance did not meet a standard of failure that would have changed the trial's result. In the end, while the court affirmed the convictions, it removed the fines that were wrongly imposed, ensuring that Daniel's rights were respected where the trial process fell short.

Continue ReadingF 2014-3

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-2013-1199

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-1199, Gene Douglas Graham appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Douglas Graham was found guilty by a jury for lewd molestation, which is against the law. The jury decided that he should spend twenty-five years in prison. However, the judge took some time off his sentence and said he would only have to serve thirteen years and pay a fine. During the trial, Gene's arguments for appeal included that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he did something wrong, that he couldn't present a defense, and that he didn’t get a fair trial. Specifically, he said the judge made a mistake by not letting him talk about an eviction notice he received, which he thought was important to show that he knew about the accusations before he made a statement to the police. The court decided that the judge had made a mistake by not allowing Gene to talk about the eviction notice and that it was important for his defense. They believed that not being able to mention it could have affected the jury's decision. Even though the State had a strong case, the jury was still confused because they found him not guilty on two other counts related to the same victim. The judge also mentioned that talking about Gene's right to stay silent when the police questioned him was wrong and should not have happened. Gene’s lawyer didn’t object to this at the trial, so it complicated the case. However, since they found other problems, they reversed the conviction and decided he needed a new trial. In the end, the court agreed that Gene had not been treated fairly during his trial, leading them to reverse the decision and start over. This means they felt important evidence was wrongfully kept out and that he was not given a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2013-1199

F-2011-509

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-509, Mark Anthony Clayborne appealed his conviction for Perjury by Subornation and Allowing the Production of a False Exhibit. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for Perjury by Subornation but reversed the conviction for Allowing the Production of a False Exhibit. One judge dissented. Clayborne, a lawyer, represented a defendant accused of selling drugs. During the trial, he presented a video as evidence showing his client was in Mexico at the time of the alleged crime. However, a forensic video analyst testified that the date stamp on the video was altered. As a result, Clayborne was charged with subornation of perjury for allowing false evidence and for producing a false exhibit. Throughout his appeal, Clayborne raised several issues. He argued that the trial court made errors by improperly answering jury questions, violating his rights due to prosecutorial misconduct, and mishandling evidence. He also contended that certain jury instructions were incorrect, particularly a lack of clear mention of required knowledge of the false exhibit. The court ruled that while there was an error regarding jury instructions, it was not enough to require a reversal of the conviction for subornation of perjury because the outcome was still supported by strong evidence. However, they found that the trial court erred in how they handled the issues related to the false exhibit, leading to that conviction being overturned. The decision covered various claims of error including jury questions, prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, and evidence issues. Ultimately, the court decided to keep one conviction while reversing the other due to significant procedural concerns.

Continue ReadingF-2011-509

F-2007-336

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-336, Michelle Ann Barry appealed her conviction for First-Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Michelle Ann Barry was found guilty of murdering her infant daughter, Andrea Heath. The jury decided on a life sentence for Barry. Barry argued that the evidence against her was not strong enough to prove she was guilty. Her main point was that the evidence only suggested she might be guilty but did not rule out other possibilities of who could have harmed her child. The court explained that it had to look at the evidence in a way that favored the state. They concluded that the jury could have believed Barry was the one who harmed her daughter. This was largely because the only other person awake during the incident was Barry's five-year-old son, who was too small to cause the injuries. Barry also claimed her lawyer did not do a good job defending her in court. To win this point, she had to show that her lawyer made serious mistakes and that those mistakes changed the outcome of her case. She pointed out that her lawyer failed to object to certain evidence that could have hurt her chances in the trial, like bad character evidence about her lifestyle and drug use. The court agreed with Barry that her lawyer's performance was lacking. They noted that her lawyer didn’t challenge negative testimony that could mislead the jury, and importantly, did not find experts to counter the claims made about her son’s physical inability to cause the injuries. Due to the many mistakes made by her lawyer during the trial, the court felt that Barry's conviction couldn’t stand. They reversed her conviction which means she would have a chance at a new trial to present her case again. One judge dissented, believing that the conviction should be upheld.

Continue ReadingF-2007-336

F-2007-438

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-438, Gregory Lynn Bryant appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence of six years imprisonment, while vacating the $2500 fine. One judge dissented. Bryant was found guilty of lewd molestation after a jury trial. He had previously faced charges of first-degree rape but was acquitted of that charge. The jury recommended Bryant receive a six-year prison sentence and a fine. Bryant then appealed the decision, listing several reasons for his appeal. He claimed that there were errors that affected his trial. First, he argued the prosecution suggested he had a history of similar misconduct, which he believed was unfair because there was no evidence to support that. Next, he argued that an expert witness's testimony was improperly allowed, which affected the truthfulness of a key witness for the state. Bryant also argued that he should receive credit for time he spent in county jail while waiting for his trial. He further believed that the jury was wrongly instructed about the fine they imposed and that the trial court did not follow proper procedures when jurors had questions. Lastly, he claimed that the trial judge was wrong to stop an expert from testifying about psychological tests he performed on him. After reviewing all the evidence, the court found no errors that would lead to overturning the conviction. The court decided the prosecution did not improperly suggest past crimes. They also stated the expert witness did not comment on the victim's truthfulness and that Bryant was not entitled to credit for time served. Regarding the fine, the court ruled the previous instructions to the jury were incorrect, which led to the fine being vacated. Furthermore, they noted that the rules for communication with jurors were not followed, but this did not harm Bryant's case. Lastly, they concluded that the expert testimony he wanted to present was not relevant to his guilt or innocence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and confirmed the six-year prison sentence, while directing the trial court to reassess his jail fees.

Continue ReadingF-2007-438

F-2006-1055

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.

Continue ReadingF-2006-1055

RE-2006-246

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-246, the appellant appealed his conviction for several offenses involving credit cards and a weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of the suspended sentences for the credit card offenses but affirmed the revocation of the suspended sentence for the weapons offense. One judge dissented. The appellant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including possession of a stolen credit card and using a weapon. He was sentenced to prison but his sentences were suspended, meaning he would not serve time if he followed the rules. Over time, the court decided to revoke some of this suspended time, claiming that he violated the conditions of his release. The main point of disagreement was whether the appellant had violated the terms of his suspended sentences and if the court was right to impose harsher penalties. The court found that for the first case, the timing meant the sentences had already lapsed before the state could take action, so that part was reversed. However, for the weapons offense, the court decided that enough evidence was presented to support revoking the suspended sentence, even considering the appellant’s claims about mental health issues. The judges had different views on the fairness and reasons behind the court's decisions on these matters, leading to the dissenting opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2006-246

F-2005-110

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-110, Marvin Royston White appealed his conviction for three counts of first degree manslaughter due to driving under the influence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Marvin Royston White was found guilty by a jury for causing the deaths of three people while driving after consuming alcohol. The jury set him to serve twenty years for each count, making a total of sixty years in prison. White argued that he did not intentionally drink alcohol that day because he took cold medicine which he didn't know contained alcohol. White claimed that his attorney did not help him properly at trial by not asserting certain defenses, including involuntary intoxication. He mentioned that his attorney didn’t ask for a jury instruction on this defense, simply arguing that he was not guilty due to sleep apnea causing him to fall asleep while driving. The court considered whether the trial court should have instructed the jury on involuntary intoxication since White's defense was that he unknowingly consumed alcohol. The court felt this was important as it could have changed the jury's decision if they understood that his intoxication was not voluntary. Since the lower court did not give that instruction, the OCCA found it to be a major mistake that could have impacted the verdict significantly. Therefore, they decided to reverse White's conviction and ordered a new trial to give him a fair chance to present his defense properly. The dissenting judge believed that the evidence did not support the need for that jury instruction on involuntary intoxication, arguing that White was responsible for his actions and knowingly drove under the influence. Ultimately, White’s appeal was granted, allowing him a chance for a new trial to properly address his defense.

Continue ReadingF-2005-110

F-2006-301

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-301, Peggy L. Caves appealed her conviction for Neglect by Caretaker. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Caves' conviction but modify her sentence. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence. The case involved Peggy L. Caves, who was found guilty of neglecting an adult in her care. The jury suggested a $10,000 fine, and the judge agreed to this sentence. Caves argued that there were several mistakes during her trial, including that there wasn't enough evidence to prove her guilt, and that she didn't get a fair trial because of various reasons, such as improper juror conduct and irrelevant testimony. The court looked closely at the arguments Caves made. They found that there was enough evidence showing that Caves neglected the adult in question. They also determined that she was aware of the charges against her, so the fact that the evidence presented matched the charges was not a problem. One key argument was about whether Caves did everything she could to help the adult in her care. While Caves said she did not think the person needed help, the court noted that unless a doctor declares a person dead, help must be given. The court concluded that the rules related to Do Not Resuscitate orders did not apply in this case. The court agreed that certain evidence, like the mention of a civil suit against Caves' employer, was not necessary and could have influenced the jury unfairly. Because of this, they decided to lower Caves' fine from $10,000 to $7,500. In the end, the court kept the conviction but changed the amount of the fine due to the identified errors and the impact they might have had on the jury's decision. One judge disagreed with lowering the fine, believing that Caves was already fortunate to only receive a fine without jail time.

Continue ReadingF-2006-301

F-2005-228

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-228, Gordon Fife Franklin appealed his conviction for Kidnapping, Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Cruelty to Animals. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Cruelty to Animals and to modify the sentences for the remaining convictions to 55 years each instead of 250 years. One judge dissented. Franklin was found guilty by a jury and received a very long sentence for his crimes. The jury thought that his actions were very bad and wanted him to spend a lot of time in prison. However, the court later said the sentences were too long. They decided that the evidence for one of the charges, Cruelty to Animals, was not strong enough to keep that conviction. During the trial, the court let different pieces of evidence be shown to the jury. Some of this evidence was questioned later, but the court said that it didn't really change the outcome of the trial. They said that even though there were mistakes made in the trial, the serious charges of Kidnapping and Assault were still valid. Overall, the court agreed that while Franklin did do some wrong things, the punishments should be reduced to a more reasonable amount of time. In conclusion, Franklin's punishment was lightened, and the charge for hurting the animal was removed completely.

Continue ReadingF-2005-228

F-2006-114

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-114, Tuydale Eugene LeFlore appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder, Leaving the Scene of an Accident Involving Damage, and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment for Leaving the Scene and Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle, but modified his sentence for Second Degree Murder from sixty years to thirty years. One judge dissented regarding the modification of the sentence for the murder charge, arguing that there was no evidence that the jury considered parole during their decision.

Continue ReadingF-2006-114