Legal Ruling Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2020-79

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2020
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2020-79, Stricker appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Desecration of a Human Corpse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court that dismissed the alternative charge of First Degree Felony Murder during the commission of a kidnapping. None dissented. On April 17, 2019, Stricker was charged with serious crimes including First Degree Murder in Kingfisher County. Later, he faced an amended charge stating he could be guilty of First Degree Premediated Murder or First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping. During a hearing, the judge decided to dismiss the kidnapping charge based on insufficient evidence, which led the State to appeal the decision. The State argued that the judge’s decision was incorrect because they believed there was enough evidence to show that a crime occurred and that Stricker was involved. They said that at a preliminary hearing, it's essential to prove that probably a crime was committed and that the person involved might have done it. The judge ruled that although Stricker was in a position to manage his victim, there wasn't enough proof to suggest he intended to kidnap her. The second argument from the State was about the timing of Stricker's motion to quash the charges. They claimed the judge should not have considered this motion because it was filed after he pleaded not guilty. However, the court found that the judge did have the authority to hear the motion, even though the prosecution thought otherwise. Ultimately, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to dismiss the charge of First Degree Felony Murder related to kidnapping and decided to uphold that dismissal.

S-2015-771

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 8, 2018
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2015-771, the defendant appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower courts' rulings. One judge dissented. Carl Edward Prince, also known as Carl Edward Harper, was arrested for having marijuana and other related charges. He was charged with three main offenses regarding drug possession and use of a police radio. During the early stages of the trial, a magistrate judge decided there wasn't enough evidence for one of the charges, which was about maintaining a place used for selling drugs. The prosecution believed that this decision was wrong and appealed it. The appeal against the magistrate's decision went to another judge who agreed with the first judge, stating that the evidence given by the prosecution was not strong enough to prove that Prince had maintained a location where marijuana was kept with the intent to distribute it. Because of this, they could not prove that there was a pattern or habit of drug use or sales at the location. The case was taken to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The main issues raised by the prosecution were about whether the requirement for a pattern of activity (habitualness) should be considered a fact that needed to be proven and whether there was enough evidence to bring the case to a jury. The Appeals Court decided that the past decisions regarding drug cases required proof of more than just a single event of drug possession. They reasoned that a location must show a pattern of illegal drug activity or use before a person can be convicted under this law. The court looked carefully at what evidence was presented while considering the arguments from both sides. They concluded that there were no clear mistakes made by the lower courts. The evidence didn’t meet the standard needed to prove that Prince’s home was used primarily for drug activity. They upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which means that Prince was not found guilty of that charge. One judge disagreed with this final decision, feeling that the lower courts made a mistake in throwing out the charge about maintaining a place for drugs. This dissenting opinion argued that the law should allow for flexibility and not just rely on showing repeated actions or habits to prove the case. The dissenting judge expressed that the current interpretation of the law was too strict and made it difficult to prosecute based on the evidence presented. In summary, the Appeal Court confirmed that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Prince with maintaining a place for drug distribution, leading to the upholding of his preliminary ruling.

S-2005-657

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 8, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.