First Degree Robbery

C-2017-998

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2017-998, Arnold Dean Howell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate Howell's convictions and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented. Howell had pleaded guilty to the charges in the District Court of Creek County and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and twenty-five years for the robbery conviction, with both sentences served one after the other. After the guilty plea, Howell filed a motion to withdraw it, which the district court denied. Howell then raised several issues in his appeal, questioning the state's authority to prosecute him, his competency to plead guilty, if his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, whether he received good legal help, and if his sentence was too harsh. The important part of the appeal was Howell's claim regarding jurisdiction. He argued that the state did not have the right to prosecute him because he is considered an Indian under federal laws and the crimes happened within the Muscogee Creek Nation Reservation. This argument was based on a specific legal case called McGirt v. Oklahoma, which changed how certain cases with Indian individuals should be treated. In response to Howell's appeal, the court ordered a review of his case to determine if he was an Indian and if the crimes occurred on the reservation. During this review, both sides agreed on a few facts: Howell has Indian blood, is a registered citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, and the crimes did occur within the reservation. The district court accepted these facts. Following this information, the court concluded that Howell is legally an Indian and that the state did not have authority over the case. As a result, the court decided Howell's conviction could not stand, and they vacated the lower court's judgment and ordered the case to be dismissed. In conclusion, Howell's legal challenges about how his case was handled were significant enough to require a reversal of his convictions based on the jurisdictional issues brought up by the McGirt decision. This decision demonstrates how important it is to understand the laws regarding tribal lands and individual rights within the legal system.

Continue ReadingC-2017-998

J-2019-0092

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

**Summary of the Case: Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek v. State of Oklahoma** **Court:** Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals **Case Number:** F-2018-263 **Decision Date:** June 13, 2019 **Overview:** Jeremy Dwayne Lavorchek was convicted by a jury in Garvin County for multiple crimes associated with an armed robbery at a pharmacy. The jury found him guilty on all counts, which included First Degree Robbery, Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Conspiracy to Commit a Felony, multiple counts of Kidnapping, and multiple counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. Following these convictions, the jury recommended life sentences on all counts. **Key Crimes Committed (Counts):** 1. First Degree Robbery 2. Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony 3. Conspiracy to Commit a Felony 4-6. Kidnapping (3 counts) 7-9. Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (3 counts) **Sentencing:** The trial court, upon sentencing, ordered the sentences for counts 2 through 9 to run concurrently but consecutively to Count 1, which meant that Lavorchek must serve 85% of the life sentence for the robbery before becoming eligible for parole. **Propositions of Error Raised on Appeal:** Lavorchek raised eight propositions, primarily focusing on claims of double punishment, denial of self-representation, ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in sentencing, and cumulative effect of errors. 1. **Double Punishment Allegations:** Lavorchek argued that his convictions for robbery and the various assaults and kidnappings constituted double punishment. The court rejected these claims, emphasizing that the crimes were distinct and occurred sequentially, and separate punishments were authorized. 2. **Self-Representation:** He contended he was denied the right to represent himself. However, the court upheld the trial judge's discretion, stating Lavorchek's request was made after the trial had already commenced, which could be seen as an abuse of the privilege. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Lavorchek claimed a continuance was wrongly denied, affecting his counsel's performance. The court found no constitutional deficiency as the counsel performed effectively under the circumstances. 4. **Fair Sentencing Hearing:** He alleged improper consideration of aggravating evidence at sentencing. The court found that the information presented was appropriate. 5. **Consecutive Sentencing:** Lavorchek argued the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences, but the court ruled this was within the judge's authority and not excessive. 6. **Cumulative Error:** The court ruled there was no error to accumulate since all propositions were denied. **Outcome:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence, indicating that Lavorchek received a fair trial and proper sentencing under the law. **Legal Principles Involved:** - Double jeopardy protections - Right to self-representation - Effective assistance of counsel - Sentencing discretion of trial courts - Cumulative error doctrine The case underscores the judicial principles guiding the implications of multiple charges arising from a single criminal event and the procedural safeguards in criminal trials. **Link:** For further reference, the full opinion can be found at [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/J-2019-0092_1734447399.pdf).

Continue ReadingJ-2019-0092

RE-2018-231

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

This summary opinion addresses the appeal of Latarsha Grant concerning the revocation of her suspended sentences in two criminal cases. Below is a concise breakdown of the key points from the opinion: ### Background - Latarsha Grant was convicted in 2007 for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (Case No. CF-2007-359) and sentenced to ten years with the sentence suspended. - In 2011, she was involved in new criminal activities leading to further actions against her suspended sentence. - By 2012, she had entered a guilty plea in a new case regarding drug distribution (Case No. CF-2011-269) with a concurrent ten-year suspended sentence after completing a rehabilitation program. - In 2017, a motion to revoke her suspended sentences was filed due to allegations of her involvement in a robbery, leading to the revocation hearing in 2018. ### Procedural History - The trial court, after hearing evidence, revoked her suspended sentences due to her involvement in the new crimes and appeared to find sufficient evidence against her. ### Appellate Claims Grant raised seven propositions of error, which the court proceeded to analyze: 1. **Competent Evidence**: The court found sufficient evidence that Grant had violated the terms of her suspended sentences. The evidence established her involvement in planning the robbery and her presence during the crime. 2. **Right to Confront Witnesses**: The court concluded that the hearsay issues raised were not applicable, as revocation procedures allow for such evidence. Furthermore, all relevant witnesses were available for cross-examination. 3. **Jurisdiction Concerns**: Grant's arguments relating to the trial court's jurisdiction or abuse of discretion regarding specific offenses were deemed misdirected, as they pertain to her original plea which she could challenge separately. 4. **Excessive Sentencing**: Grant claimed her overall sentence was excessive, but this is tied to the context of her behavior and criminal activities, which justified the trial court's decisions. 5. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Similar to the above, claims surrounding the inadequacy of her representation in court were not appropriately addressed in this revocation context and would need separate proceedings. 6. **Nunc Pro Tunc Orders**: Grant sought to correct inaccuracies related to her plea and sentencing, which would also need to be handled through a different legal mechanism than this appeal. ### Conclusion The appellate court affirmed the decision of the District Court to revoke the suspended sentences, stating that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The court dismissed all of Grant's claims based on their analysis of procedural and evidential standards, emphasizing the limitations of their review scope in revocation appeals. ### Decision Issued The order to revoke the concurrent suspended sentences was **AFFIRMED**. The court ordered the issuance of the mandate. ### Document Access A link to the full opinion is provided for those seeking detailed legal reasoning: [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-231_1734701780.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-231

RE-2018-232

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

**Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Oklahoma** **Case No. RE-2018-232** **Summary Opinion** **Appellant:** Courtney Quillen **Appellee:** The State of Oklahoma **Decided on:** May 30, 2019 **Judge:** Kuehn, Vice Presiding Judge **Background:** Courtney Quillen appealed the revocation of her concurrent seven-year suspended sentences issued by Judge Gregory D. Pollard. She had been convicted in two cases for several counts of Uttering a Forged Instrument. **Key Dates:** - **August 25, 2016:** Quillen entered nolo contendere pleas in two cases. - **March 3, 2017:** The State filed a motion to revoke her suspended sentences for failing to pay fees. - **February 26, 2018:** A revocation hearing was held, leading to the decision to revoke her sentences. **Charges and Allegations:** The State alleged that Quillen committed additional crimes (robbery and conspiracy) while on probation, which constituted violations of her probation terms. **Decision:** The court concluded that: - The alleged procedural errors regarding the twenty-day rule did not affect the court's ability to revoke the sentences from Case No. CF-2015-817 since it had jurisdiction over that case. - The evidence presented established that Quillen had participated in a robbery, thus justifying the revocation of her suspended sentences. **Propositions of Error:** 1. **Jurisdiction challenge** - Denied; revocation in Case No. CF-2015-817 upheld. 2. **Validity of waiver regarding twenty-day rule** - Moot. 3. **Insufficient evidence for robbery** - Denied; evidence supported the involvement in robbery and conspiracy. 4. **Insufficient evidence for conspiracy** - Denied; Quillen was shown to have conspired with co-defendants. 5. **Ineffective assistance of counsel** - Moot due to affirming the revocation based on other factors. 6. **Abuse of discretion in revocation** - Denied; trial court acted within its discretion. **Final Order:** The Court affirmed the decision of the District Court of Pontotoc County to revoke Quillen’s concurrent suspended sentences. **Mandate Issued.** [Full opinion and details available here](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/RE-2018-232_1734699237.pdf).

Continue ReadingRE-2018-232

J-2015-353

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2015-353, E.A.F. appealed his conviction for robbery and attempted robbery. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the order to sentence E.A.F. as an adult and instructed for a new hearing to be held before a different judge, only after a psychological evaluation was completed. Two judges dissented.

Continue ReadingJ-2015-353

F-2013-36

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-36, Jasper appealed his conviction for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, Attempted First Degree Rape, and First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Jasper's convictions but modify the sentence for First Degree Robbery. One judge dissented. Jasper was found guilty by a jury of four serious crimes. For Conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years and fined $5,000. For Kidnapping, he received a 20-year sentence. Attempted Rape meant he was sentenced to 22.5 years, and for First Degree Robbery, he was given ten years. The sentences were supposed to be served one after the other, which made his total time in prison very long. Jasper raised several arguments on why he thought his convictions should be changed. He argued that the evidence didn't prove he was part of a conspiracy to commit rape, meaning there wasn't enough proof of an agreement to commit a crime. He also claimed that he shouldn't have been punished for both Kidnapping and Attempted Rape because they were connected to the same act. He believed this meant he faced double punishment for the same offense, which should not happen. Regarding his robbery conviction, Jasper contended that he shouldn't be punished for it because of double jeopardy, a rule that stops someone from being tried for the same crime twice. He also claimed the judge made a mistake when telling the jury about the sentence they could give him for robbery, which he believed went against his rights. Another argument was that some evidence presented during the trial wasn't fair and made him look bad but was not relevant to the case. He asserted that a lot of hearsay evidence was introduced that made his trial unfair and that his lawyer didn’t help him properly. After review, the court found that Jasper's conviction for Conspiracy was supported enough by evidence for the jury to make its decision. They ruled that the convictions for Kidnapping and Attempted Rape were also valid because they were considered separate crimes, meaning he could be punished for both. The claim of double jeopardy concerning his robbery conviction was rejected because the crimes he committed had different elements, making each punishment lawful. When it came to the sentencing instructions for First Degree Robbery, the court recognized a clear error since the jury was told wrong information about the possible sentence. They found that the minimum prison term should have been five years instead of ten. Because of this mistake, Jasper’s sentence for First Degree Robbery was modified. Other claims by Jasper about unfair evidence and the effectiveness of his lawyer did not convince the court to overturn his other convictions. The court believed that, aside from the sentencing issue, his trial was fair overall. At the end, the court kept Jasper’s convictions for Conspiracy, Kidnapping, and Attempted First Degree Rape as they were but changed his sentence for First Degree Robbery to five years. Thus, the court’s decision was mostly in favor of maintaining the original verdict and just correcting the sentencing issue.

Continue ReadingF-2013-36

F-2012-08

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2012-08, Ralph T. Smith, Jr. appealed his conviction for kidnapping, first-degree robbery, attempted rape, forcible sodomy, first-degree rape, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence on Count I to ten years imprisonment and to remove post-imprisonment supervision from Counts III, IV, and V. One judge dissented. **Summary of the Case:** Ralph T. Smith, Jr. was found guilty of serious crimes against a 76-year-old woman, R.C., after they met at a casino. Smith initiated a friendly interaction with R.C., who ended up offering him a ride. However, he then assaulted her and committed various violent acts, including attempted rape, forcible sodomy, and robbery. The jury sentenced Smith to long prison terms for each conviction. **Key Facts:** - During a day at the casino, Smith befriended R.C. and, after some time, manipulated her into giving him a ride. - Smith then forcibly assaulted R.C. at her house and later at a motel. - After the incident, R.C. reported the crime to her family and the police. **Legal Issues:** 1. **Speedy Trial**: Smith argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated according to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. The court reviewed the timeline of events and denied his claim, stating that the time delays were justified. 2. **Sentencing Instructions**: Smith contested that the jury was improperly instructed about the potential punishment. The court agreed there was an error and modified the sentences accordingly. 3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: He claimed that he did not get adequate legal representation, particularly related to the sentencing instructions. The court noted that this claim was valid but remedied through the sentence modifications. 4. **Prosecutorial Misconduct**: Smith argued that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were inappropriate. The court found the comments were not severe enough to undermine the fairness of the trial. 5. **Jurisdiction**: Smith questioned whether the court had jurisdiction over some charges since the crimes occurred in different counties. The court ruled that jurisdiction was proper because the kidnapping and subsequent crimes were closely connected. 6. **Pro Se Brief**: Smith attempted to submit additional complaints without sufficient support from his attorney. The court denied this attempt due to failure to follow proper procedures. In conclusion, while Smith's sentence modification was granted throughout the appeals process, the court maintained that he was rightly convicted and that the initial trial was fair despite some errors.

Continue ReadingF-2012-08

C-2010-337

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2010-337, Derrick Ewayne Bickham appealed his conviction for felonious pointing of a firearm and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One member dissented. Bickham entered no contest pleas for several charges in a District Court, resulting in a 20-year sentence for robbery and other related offenses. He argued that his pleas were made under coercion and did not reflect a clear understanding of the situation due to his mental health issues. However, the court found that Bickham entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily, dismissing his claims of coercion. Additionally, Bickham contested that he should not have to pay for the costs related to his incarceration. The court ruled that he could challenge the cost calculation in a different court proceeding. The decision denied Bickham's petition but sent the case back to the District Court to assess if he was considered mentally ill, which could exempt him from incarceration costs.

Continue ReadingC-2010-337

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

C-2006-1154

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2006-1154, Rayshun Carlie Mullins appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes, including rape and robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Mullins could withdraw his guilty pleas to many of the charges because he was not informed that he would have to serve 85% of his sentences before being eligible for parole. One judge dissented, arguing that the court should not vacate the pleas since Mullins knew he faced a long prison term when he entered his guilty pleas.

Continue ReadingC-2006-1154

F-2005-1150

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-1150, Kendall Dewayne Carr appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery by Force and Fear and False Personation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for First Degree Robbery and affirmed the conviction for False Personation. One judge dissented. Carr was found guilty by a jury in the District Court of Cleveland County. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for robbery and 4 years for false personation, with both sentences running at the same time. Carr argued that the trial court's instruction to the jury, known as a dynamite charge, forced them to reach a decision unfairly. The court examined the entire case, including trial records and evidence. They decided that the instruction given during deliberations was coercive. This means it pressured jurors to go along with the majority without respecting their own honest beliefs. The court noted that the instruction did not tell jurors to stick to their true feelings about the case. They found that this mistake was serious enough to require a new trial for the robbery conviction. The court made this decision based on the law, stating that an accurate jury instruction is important for a fair trial. While one judge had a different opinion and thought the error wasn't as serious, the majority believed that not warning jurors to hold onto their honest beliefs could have affected the outcome of the trial. As a result, they reversed the decision on the robbery while keeping the other conviction intact.

Continue ReadingF-2005-1150

F-2005-252

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-252, Charles Earl Lindsay appealed his conviction for robbery with an imitation firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his conviction. One judge dissented. Charles Earl Lindsay was tried in Cleveland County and found guilty of robbery with an imitation firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 40 years in prison. Lindsay did not agree with this decision and argued several points in his appeal. First, he claimed that there was not enough evidence to prove he committed robbery using an imitation firearm. The court agreed that while the state proved most parts of the robbery, they did not prove that Lindsay threatened the victim with the imitation firearm since she never actually saw it during the crime. Because of this, the court thought it was fair to change his conviction to first-degree robbery, saying he unnecessarily hurt the victim and scared her. Lindsay also argued that the prosecution had made mistakes during the trial, including allowing a police officer to testify about the victim identifying him. Although the court noted this was not a good practice, they felt it did not change the outcome of the trial since Lindsay’s attorney had challenged the identification in other ways. Another point Lindsay raised was that his lawyer did not help him properly. The court decided that the lawyer’s actions did not break any laws protecting his rights, so this argument did not succeed. Lindsay further stated he had an unfair trial because he was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs in front of the jury. The court acknowledged this was an error but said that this alone did not warrant a different outcome. Lindsay’s attorney also did not ask for the jury to consider any lesser charges of robbery, but the court found this was appropriate since Lindsay claimed he was innocent. Regarding closing arguments by the prosecutor, the court found that a fair trial was still upheld. However, the court did recognize there were mistakes regarding Lindsay's sentencing, particularly not informing the jury about some rules related to sentencing. In the end, the court reversed Lindsay's original conviction and instead convicted him of first-degree robbery. They also decided to reduce his sentence to 20 years in prison, taking into account all the discussed errors. The case was sent back to the lower court to correct the judgment and sentence based on these decisions.

Continue ReadingF-2005-252

F 2004-989

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.

Continue ReadingF 2004-989

F-2002-201

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-201, Robert Mark Stephens appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery and Attempted Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions but modified his sentences to run concurrently. One judge dissented. Stephens was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was sentenced to fifteen years for robbery and one year for attempted kidnapping, with the sentences to run one after the other. He raised several issues for appeal. First, he argued that his right to due process was violated because the court did not order a professional examination to check if he was competent to stand trial. However, the court concluded that there were not enough facts to raise a doubt about his competency. Second, Stephens claimed the trial court abused its power by not allowing him to use a mental illness defense. The court found no error in this as Oklahoma law does not allow for a defense of diminished capacity in non-capital cases. Third, he said he did not get a fair trial because the judge did not permit jury instructions on his mental capacity, which he believed was necessary to explain his intent during the crime. The court agreed with the trial court's ruling, saying that there is no provision for mitigating evidence in such trials. Stephens also believed he had ineffective help from his lawyer, but the court found he did not prove this claim. Finally, he said the trial judge wrongly refused to consider concurrent sentences, which led to an abuse of discretion. The court acknowledged this point and modified his sentences so they would run at the same time. In summary, the court upheld the convictions but changed the way the sentences would be served, allowing Stephens to serve his time for both crimes together instead of separately.

Continue ReadingF-2002-201

F-2001-637

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-637, James Ricky Ezell, III appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery, False Impersonation, and Eluding a Police Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Ezell's judgment but ordered the case to be sent back for resentencing. One judge dissented. Ezell was found guilty by a jury of robbing a convenience store and other crimes. The jury gave him long sentences for each crime, which the trial court ordered to be served one after the other. Ezell argued that his right to a fair trial was hurt because an African-American was removed from the jury, that the judge’s policy of always giving consecutive sentences was wrong, and that his sentences were too harsh. The court decided that the prosecutor had a good reason for removing the juror, so there was no unfair trial. However, it agreed that the judge's strict policy against considering running sentences together was a mistake. The court found that while sentences usually should run consecutively, judges must look at all options, including the chance to run sentences together, especially if a defendant has prior convictions. In conclusion, while Ezell's conviction was upheld, the court said the sentencing decision was not fully considered and sent the case back for the judge to look at this again. One judge disagreed with the decision to send the case back for resentencing, believing that the original sentences were justified given the nature of Ezell's crimes.

Continue ReadingF-2001-637

F-2000-451

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-451, Christopher B. Andrews appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse Andrews' conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One justice dissented. Andrews was found guilty of robbing someone and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. After the jury finished their discussions about the case but before they made their final decision, the judge let the jury go home for the night. This happened even though both Andrews' defense team and the state's lawyers did not want this to happen. According to the law, after the jury starts talking about the case, they should stay together and not be allowed to go home or talk to others about the case. If they are allowed to separate, it can hurt the fairness of the trial, and courts believe that this is automatically a problem for the defendant. The court carefully examined the situation in Andrews' case and found that since the jury was allowed to leave, they could have been influenced by others, which is not fair. The state did not show enough evidence that the jury would not be prejudiced by being separated. As a result, the court reversed the original decision, meaning that Andrews' conviction was not valid, and the case was sent back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2000-451