In OCCA case No. F-2019-196, Dakota Shay Fox appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided that the State of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to prosecute Fox, and therefore, the case was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.
**IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA** **KATESHA CHRISTINE CHILDERS,** **Appellant,** **v.** **THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,** **Appellee.** **Case No. F-2018-994** **Filed: November 21, 2019** **SUMMARY OPINION** **JOHN D. HADDEN, JUDGE:** Appellant Katesha Christine Childers appeals her Judgment and Sentence from the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2017-3783, for First Degree Murder (Count 1) and Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon (Count 2). The Honorable Kelly Greenough presided at her jury trial and sentenced her to life imprisonment on Count 1 and one year on Count 2, to run concurrently with credit for time served. Childers raises several issues including: 1. Sufficiency of evidence for her first-degree murder conviction. 2. The trial court's failure to instruct on first degree heat-of-passion manslaughter. 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting the above instruction. 4. Admission of lay witness testimony regarding her confession. 5. Admission of hearsay evidence violating her right to a fair trial. 6. Prosecutorial misconduct affecting her trial. 7. Cumulative error necessitating relief. **1. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction:** Childers argues insufficient evidence of malice aforethought. The court reviews evidence in the light most favorable to the state, concluding that a rational jury could find her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of a verbal altercation, her pursuit of the victim, and her admissions of guilt supported the jury's decision. Thus, this claim is denied. **2. Failure to Instruct on Heat-of-Passion Manslaughter:** Childers contends that the trial court erred by not issuing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. Since no objection was raised at trial, review is for plain error. The court finds no evidence supporting such an instruction as Childers was the pursuer in the confrontation. Therefore, this claim is also denied. **3. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:** Childers claims ineffective assistance because her counsel did not request the heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction. However, as she was not entitled to the instruction based on evidence, this claim fails. **4. Admission of Confession Testimony:** Childers asserts that her statements to lay witnesses were inadmissible due to lack of corroboration. The court adjudicates that there was substantial independent evidence corroborating her statements, thus denying this claim. **5. Admission of Hearsay Evidence:** Childers challenges various hearsay testimonies. Some were admitted without objection, so they are reviewed for plain error. The court finds that the admittance of testimony regarding the victim's fear of Childers is permissible under state-of-mind exceptions to hearsay. Consequently, this claim is denied. **6. Prosecutorial Misconduct:** Childers argues several instances of prosecutorial misconduct, including mention of her status as a convicted felon. Objections were made, and the trial court acted appropriately to mitigate potential prejudice against her. Based on the totality of circumstances, relief is not warranted, leading to a denial of this claim. **7. Cumulative Error:** Finally, Childers contends cumulative errors merit relief. As no individual errors warrant relief, this claim is denied. **CONCLUSION:** The Judgment and Sentence of the district court is AFFIRMED. **OPINION BY: ROWLAND, J.** **LEWIS, P.J.:** Concur **KUEHN, V.P.J.:** Concur **LUMPKIN, J.:** Concur **HUDSON, J.:** Concur **Download PDF:** [Click Here To Download PDF](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-994_1734870881.pdf)
Here is a summary of the court's decision in the case of Traevon Dontyce Harbert: **Case Overview:** Traevon Dontyce Harbert was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County for First Degree Murder (Count 1), Felon in Possession of a Firearm (Count 2), and Conspiracy to Commit Murder (Count 3). He received a life sentence for murder, two years for possession of a firearm, and four years for conspiracy, with sentences running consecutively. **Propositions of Error:** Harbert appealed his conviction, arguing two main points: 1. **Insufficient Evidence:** He contended that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish his identity as the shooter and that he had acted with malice. The court analyzed the evidence under the standard asserted in *Jackson v. Virginia*, determining that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. **Exclusion of Evidence:** Harbert argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding an arrest warrant for another suspect, which he felt was important for his defense. The court reviewed the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court acted reasonably, as the excluded evidence was based on hearsay from witnesses rather than facts within the detective's personal knowledge. The court found that the defense was still able to effectively question the detective and present alternative theories. **Decision:** The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals denied both propositions, affirming the judgment and sentence against Harbert. The decision indicated that the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's conclusions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. **Opinion Author:** Judge Lumpkin. **Final Note:** The court's rulings underscore the importance of both the sufficiency of evidence required for a conviction and the adherence to procedural rules regarding evidence admission. For further details or to download the full opinion, visit [this link](https://opinions.wirthlawoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/F-2018-586_1735313750.pdf).
In OCCA case No. F-2018-482, Sumeika D. Byrd appealed her conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Sumeika D. Byrd was found guilty of killing Brendon Turner. The trial took place in Oklahoma County, where the jury decided that Byrd should spend life in prison. Byrd argued that there wasn't enough evidence to prove she killed Turner unlawfully and that her trial wasn't fair because the court gave a flight instruction. The first argument was about whether Byrd acted in self-defense. Under the law, if someone believes they are in danger, they may use force to protect themselves, but the belief has to be reasonable. The jury saw proof that Byrd stabbed Turner multiple times, and they had evidence showing that she intended to kill him. Some of the wounds were very serious, and evidence suggested Byrd's actions weren't justifiable self-defense. Instead, the jury believed she had the intention to kill. Byrd's second argument was about the flight instruction. This instruction tells the jury that if someone runs away after a crime, it might mean they have guilt. Byrd did leave the scene, and since she claimed self-defense, the court decided it was right to instruct the jury about her leaving. The court found that this instruction was appropriate and that the trial was fair. In summary, the court reviewed all the evidence and decided that Byrd's conviction should stand. The dissenting judge disagreed with the decision, but the majority of the court felt there was enough proof to affirm Byrd's sentence.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-1031, a person appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One member of the court dissented. Dakota Joe Spainhower was found guilty of first-degree murder for killing his friend, who was a juvenile. The incident occurred after their shift at a local restaurant in July 2016. After receiving a ride home from the victim, Spainhower's mother noticed something strange outside and found a body next to a car, which belonged to the victim. Initially, Spainhower told his mother that the victim had tried to rob him and stabbed him first, prompting him to fight back and stab the victim multiple times. Evidence showed that Spainhower had blood on him and took the victim's keys after the incident. Spainhower's confession to the police was a crucial part of the trial. The court had to determine if this confession was made voluntarily and if he understood his rights when he waived them. There were questions regarding his mental health, education level, and the long duration of his questioning by police, all of which were argued to undermine the validity of his confession. However, the court found sufficient evidence that his confession was voluntary. The court also evaluated whether the evidence presented during the trial was enough to support the murder conviction. They determined that the evidence, including the victim's numerous injuries, was compelling enough for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Spainhower was guilty of intent to kill. Spainhower raised concerns about prosecutorial misconduct, claiming that the prosecutor made improper statements during closing arguments. The court assessed these claims and found that any mistakes did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Spainhower argued that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel. However, the court determined that his counsel acted adequately throughout the trial. Finally, Spainhower claimed that the combination of all the errors he identified deprived him of a fair trial. The court concluded that since no individual errors were found that warranted relief, the cumulative effect of claims also did not provide grounds for a new trial. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Spainhower, maintaining his conviction for first-degree murder with no opportunity for parole.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2018-184, Juanita Martinez Gomez appealed her conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction. One judge dissented. Juanita, a 49-year-old woman, was found guilty of killing her daughter, Geneva Gomez, who was 33 years old, in Oklahoma City. The events took place in August 2016 after a violent encounter at Juanita's home. Geneva had previously lived with her boyfriend but went to collect her belongings with her mother. The boyfriend later became worried when he could not communicate with Geneva. The trial revealed that when the boyfriend visited Juanita's home, he found Geneva's body. She had severe injuries on her head and signs that she had been beaten. Instead of asking for help, Juanita showed strange behavior, claiming that Geneva was possessed. Evidence showed that Juanita attempted to clean up the crime scene and tried to prevent her boyfriend from leaving. At trial, Juanita did not testify, and her lawyers claimed that her odd behavior and statements meant she did not kill her daughter with intent. The jury, however, found that the evidence showed a clear intention to kill, considering the violent nature of the attack and Juanita's actions afterward. Juanita raised multiple claims of error in her appeal, but the court found that she had not been denied a fair trial. Her statements to the police about her motive for killing Geneva were not allowed in court because they were considered hearsay. The court reviewed the evidence and decided that it was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder, rejecting Juanita's claims for lesser charges or defenses. The court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
In OCCA case No. F-2017-762, Kendell Paul Sparrow appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree (Malice Aforethought). In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the Judgment and Sentence of the district court, sentencing him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. One judge dissented. Sparrow was convicted of a serious crime, and his appeal included two main issues. First, he argued that the trial should not have included the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness because he believed it went against his right to confront witnesses. Second, he contended that there was not enough evidence to support his conviction for murder. During the trial, the court allowed a witness’s earlier testimony to be used because that witness was unavailable to testify in person. Sparrow challenged this, claiming it violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found no error because the State had made reasonable efforts to bring the witness to trial. The court also determined that Sparrow had a chance to question the witness during the preliminary hearing. Therefore, the admission of the testimony was upheld. As for the evidence presented against Sparrow, the court examined whether the State proved he was guilty of murder. The law requires that to convict someone of first-degree murder, it must be shown they unlawfully caused the death of another with intent or malice. The court looked at all the evidence in favor of the State and concluded that reasonable jurors could find Sparrow guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court decided that Sparrow's appeal did not provide grounds for reversing his conviction. Therefore, the original sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed.
In OCCA case No. PC-2015-6, Kendall Wayne Edwards appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that granted post-conviction relief, vacating Edwards's murder conviction and ordering a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. One judge dissented. The case stemmed from an incident on March 9, 2001, where Edwards was accused of shooting Gerald Lamont Ford during a fight outside a convenience store. Edwards was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment, but he sought post-conviction relief in 2012, claiming several errors occurred during his trial, including improper admission of evidence and ineffective legal representation. The court's analysis focused primarily on the newly discovered evidence claim, which was that another witness, Larika A. Alexander, could potentially exonerate him by stating she saw him being beaten and heard the gunshot without witnessing him fire the weapon. The lower court agreed that this evidence was significant enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial and held that Edwards deserved a new trial. While the majority opinion supported this conclusion, a dissenting judge argued that the new evidence did not sufficiently meet the standard required to warrant a new trial since it was cumulative and lacked materiality. The dissent emphasized that the jury had already evaluated the credibility of the witnesses during the original trial. Ultimately, the court's decision to uphold the lower court's granting of a new trial was based on the notion that justice required the possibility of a different outcome with this new testimony. Thus, Edwards was granted the opportunity for a re-examination of the case.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-693, Michael Wayne Dorsey appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Dorsey's conviction and his sentences but vacated the $5,000 victim compensation assessment set by the trial court. One member of the court dissented. Dorsey was found guilty by a jury of manslaughter and shooting with intent to kill. The jury decided on a punishment of thirty years for manslaughter and five years for the shooting charge, which would be served one after the other. Dorsey argued that he should have been allowed to use self-defense as a reason for both charges, but the court found that the instructions given to the jury were correct. Dorsey also claimed that the trial judge made an error with jury instructions regarding self-defense and intoxication, but the court disagreed. He further asserted that his lawyer was not effective because there was no objection raised to those jury instructions, but the court ruled that there was nothing wrong with the instructions in the first place. Lastly, Dorsey objected to the judge imposing the victim compensation amount without considering several important factors. The court agreed that the judge did not properly assess the situation and sent the case back to the trial court for a new decision on the compensation amount. Thus, the main outcome was that while Dorsey's conviction was upheld, the court required a reconsideration of the victim compensation assessment based on certain statutory factors outlined in the law.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-469, Ricky Dale Hester appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, First Degree Arson, Conspiracy, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Kidnapping. In a published decision, the court affirmed his convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, but reversed the conviction on Count 5 with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented regarding the kidnapping conviction. Hester was found guilty after a series of serious crimes. The events began when he, along with co-defendant Carl Myers, targeted Richard Hooks. They lured Hooks to a vacant house under false pretenses, where they planned to rob him. Hooks was beaten, stabbed multiple times, and then his body was moved to a garage that was set on fire. The jury sentenced Hester to life in prison without parole for the murder, and significant prison terms for the other counts. During the trial, various pieces of evidence were presented, including confessions made by Hester. However, he raised concerns about certain jury instructions and the admission of evidence. Hester argued that a specific instruction given to the jury about co-conspirator liability was incorrect, as it could lead the jury to presume guilt simply because he was part of a conspiracy. The court found that the jury was properly instructed on the law, and that the evidence presented showed Hester's active involvement in the crimes. He also challenged the trial court’s failure to provide instructions regarding the need for corroboration of confessions and accomplice testimony. The court ruled that sufficient evidence supported Hester’s confessions and that any omission in instructions did not impact the trial's fairness. Hester claimed that the admission of statements made by his co-defendant during the conspiracy was improper and that his statements to his partner were protected by spousal privilege. The court disagreed, finding that the trial had properly handled those matters and that the evidence substantiating the crimes was strong. Despite Hester's arguments, the court determined that the evidence was enough to support the convictions for murder, arson, conspiracy, and robbery, finding he played a crucial role in the criminal acts committed. However, due to a lack of evidence showing an intent to extort while holding Hooks against his will, the kidnapping conviction was reversed. In the end, while Hester's more serious convictions were upheld, the court acknowledged flaws in the evidence related to the kidnapping charge, leading to that particular conviction being dismissed.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-1188, Daniel Allen Moore appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but remanded the case for resentencing due to a jury instruction error. One judge dissented. On June 9, 2003, Daniel Allen Moore shot 24-year-old Garade Jean Girsback in front of a mobile home where she was babysitting. Girsback was related to Moore's wife and had often lived with their family. That evening, Moore hosted a barbecue and was drinking. Witnesses heard him express anger towards Girsback and make threats about killing her. After becoming upset during their conversation, Moore accidentally fired his gun, hitting Girsback. Moore and his wife left without trying to help, and he disposed of the gun. Later, he told a neighbor it was an accident and claimed he only meant to scare Girsback. The main question during the trial was whether Moore had intended to kill Girsback or whether her death was due to recklessness or negligence. The court found that there was an error because the jury was not properly informed about the punishment options for first-degree murder, specifically failing to instruct that life with the possibility of parole was an option. The state agreed this instruction was missed, but they argued it did not affect the outcome because the defense had mentioned the options during closing arguments. The court decided that the jury's confusion could have influenced their decision, especially since they only deliberated briefly before returning a verdict and sentencing Moore to life without parole. Because of this, the case was sent back for a new sentencing hearing with the correct instructions provided to the jury. Additionally, the court addressed other claims by Moore, like the admission of his statements to police. It concluded these statements were allowed for impeachment purposes and did not violate his rights, as they were spontaneous comments. The defendant also argued there was insufficient evidence and that various errors during trial warranted a different outcome, but the court found that while there were errors, they did not combine to affect the fairness of the trial significantly. In summary, the court upheld the conviction but required that the sentencing be done again with proper jury instructions about the punishments available to them.
In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.