Involuntary Confession Archives

J-2019-620

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2020
Post category:J

This document is a court opinion from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals regarding the case of C.G., who was charged with First Degree Murder, First Degree Burglary, and Conspiracy to Commit Second Degree Burglary. The case revolves around the denial of C.G.'s motion to be certified as a juvenile or youthful offender, which would have allowed for a different legal treatment due to his age at the time of the offense (14 years old). Here is a summary of the key points: 1. **Background of the Case**: - C.G. was charged as an adult for serious crimes, and he filed a motion for certification as a juvenile or youthful offender. - The preliminary hearing and certification hearing took place, with conclusions drawn about C.G.'s amenability to treatment and public safety considerations. 2. **Court's Decision**: - The trial court denied C.G.'s request for certification, stating that the public could not be adequately protected if C.G. was treated as a youthful offender. - C.G. appealed this decision, raising several claims including abuse of discretion, evidentiary errors related to interrogation, and ineffective assistance of counsel. 3. **Ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals**: - The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that there was no abuse of discretion. - It also found that certain evidentiary claims were not properly presented for appeal. 4. **Dissenting Opinions**: - Two judges dissented, arguing that the evidence did not support the trial court's conclusion about public safety. - They contended that C.G. was amenable to treatment and that the trial court could still have ensured public protection through existing safeguards while classifying him as a youthful offender. - The dissenters also criticized the majority's handling of evidentiary issues, arguing that the ability to challenge the decision not to certify C.G. should include a review of the evidence that influenced that decision. 5. **Final Notes**: - The decision underscores the complexities involving juveniles charged with serious crimes and the judicial considerations balancing public safety and the potential for rehabilitation. - It emphasizes the potential limitations in appealing certain evidentiary matters in the context of certification hearings for juvenile offenders. Overall, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, while dissenting opinions highlighted concerns regarding the treatment of juvenile defendants.

F-2005-829

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

F-2005-129

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 3, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.

F 2004-773

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

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