New Trial

F 2003-189

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-189, James Dean Meadows 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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial.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. James Dean Meadows was found guilty of First Degree Murder by a jury. The trial took place in Oklahoma City from February 10 to 18, 2003. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for his crime. After being sentenced on February 21, 2003, Meadows appealed, bringing up five issues he believed were wrong with the trial. One of the key issues was about how his videotaped statement to the police was collected. Meadows argued that the police violated his rights by not properly informing him of his right to remain silent before they questioned him. He claimed that he was not voluntarily giving his statement, as he was taken from his home by police with guns drawn, and they did not tell him he was under arrest at the time. The police later interviewed him at their station, where they pressured him to admit his involvement in the crime. The court found that Meadows was indeed not free to leave when the police took him from his home, which meant that he was effectively under arrest without being formally informed. Because of this illegal seizure, the court ruled that his confession to the police could not be used as evidence against him. The court stated that such a confession was obtained without the rights requiring a formal warning being given to Meadows. Since the court decided that Meadow's confession was not admissible, the judgment against him was reversed, meaning he would have to be tried again. Because of this decision, the other issues raised in the appeal were not considered. In summary, the court determined that James Dean Meadows should have a new trial because the way the police obtained his confession was illegal and violated his rights.

Continue ReadingF 2003-189

F-2003-315

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-315, Shawn William Jacks appealed his conviction for Possession of a Firearm after felony conviction. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Shawn Jacks was found guilty by a jury for having a firearm, which is not allowed because he had a previous felony conviction. The jury decided that Jacks should spend five years in prison. He did not agree with this decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to look at the case again. Jacks raised several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that he did not know he was being tried for the specific crime he was accused of. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him enough. In addition, he said that some evidence used in the trial was unfair and should not have been allowed. Lastly, he felt that the punishment he received was too harsh. After looking carefully at everything, the court agreed with Jacks and found that he was not properly defended during his trial. They said that his lawyer’s strategy implied that Jacks was guilty, which is not what a lawyer should do. Because of this, the court decided that Jacks should get a new trial where he has a chance to defend himself properly. In conclusion, the court’s decision meant that Shawn Jacks could fight the charges against him again in court.

Continue ReadingF-2003-315

M-2003-784

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2003-784, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Stalking. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Appellant's judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The Appellant, Bradley Allen Crawford, was initially convicted of Stalking in the District Court of Oklahoma County. He was sentenced to six months in county jail. During his appeal, he argued that he should have been allowed to show that the complaining witness might have had a reason to be biased against him. During the trial, the Appellant wanted to present evidence related to a child custody case that involved the complaining witness. However, the trial court did not permit this information. The Appellant also tried to question the complaining witness about her possible bias during her testimony, but the trial court stopped him, stating that it was related to other domestic issues. After the trial, the Appellant requested a new trial because the judge had not allowed him to present evidence about the witness’s potential bias, but this request was denied. The court noted that it’s important to allow evidence that could show a witness might be biased. It explained that this kind of evidence is usually admissible in court. The appellate court found that the Appellant was not given a chance to show that the complaining witness had motives that could affect her testimony. They pointed out that the witness's credibility was crucial to the trial since everything the police said was based on her accounts. The appellate court decided that the trial court's errors in not allowing the questioning about the witness's bias were significant enough that they could have changed the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the Appellant's original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back to be tried again.

Continue ReadingM-2003-784

J-2003-1180

  • Post author:
  • Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J-2003-1180, T.C.S. appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the District Court's decision and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. T.C.S. was found to be delinquent after a hearing where he was accused of committing burglary when he was 16 years old. The court looked at evidence and decided that the testimony from an accomplice needed to be supported by more evidence to connect T.C.S. to the crime. Since the only supporting evidence showed that T.C.S. was in the same place as the accomplice later that night, it was not enough to prove he committed the burglary. The judges agreed that for a conviction based on an accomplice's testimony, there must be more proof that ties the defendant to the crime. As such, since this was not met, the judges reversed the earlier decision and said T.C.S. deserves a new trial.

Continue ReadingJ-2003-1180

F-2003-505

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-505, the appellant appealed his conviction for Maintaining a Place for Keeping/Selling Controlled Substances. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that a new trial was required because the jury was not properly instructed about the elements necessary for a felony conviction. The appellant argued that the jury was not asked whether he knowingly or intentionally maintained a place for keeping controlled substances, which was important for the severity of the penalty. Thus, the decision to impose a five-year prison sentence and a fine of $10,000 exceeded what the law allowed. Therefore, the court reversed the appellant's conviction and sent the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented from this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-505

F-2002-1454

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1454, Richard Val Crews appealed his conviction for multiple serious crimes including Rape by Instrumentation, Forcible Sodomy, Kidnapping, Robbery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one of the convictions related to the possession of a firearm after conviction, allowing for a new trial on that count. The other convictions were affirmed. One judge dissented, suggesting that the case should be dismissed rather than retried.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1454

F-2003-1089

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1089, Micah Ananias Horn appealed his conviction for Committing Indecent or Lewd Acts with a Child. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Horn was found guilty and sentenced to eight years in prison. He argued that several things were wrong with his trial. First, he said he didn't get a fair trial because the jury saw video evidence about a lie detector test, which is not allowed in court. He also claimed his confession was not given freely and that the prosecutor unfairly tried to make the jury feel sorry for the victim. Horn believed there wasn't enough evidence to show he did something sexual, and he thought the way the prosecutor spoke during the trial was unfair and confusing. After looking closely at all the information, the court agreed with Horn on two main points. The first was that the mention of the lie detector test could have influenced the jury’s decision and that it was serious enough to affect the outcome. The second point was that the way the prosecutor explained the burden of proof to the jury was incorrect and could confuse them about what beyond a reasonable doubt means. Since these mistakes were significant, the court ruled that Horn's conviction should be overturned, and he should have a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1089

F 2003-1036

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1036, Mark Anthony Troutt appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Troutt was tried and found guilty of distributing cocaine, which is a serious crime. The trial took place in the Oklahoma County District Court. During the trial, Troutt's lawyers argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge did not let the jury hear about his defense, which was based on entrapment. Entrapment means that someone was tricked into committing a crime they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The jury decided that Troutt was guilty and gave him a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Troutt did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the case. In the appeal, Troutt's lawyers pointed out three main problems with the trial. First, they said the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear about his defense of entrapment. They believed this was important because the jury needed to decide for themselves if Troutt had been tricked into committing the crime. Second, they claimed that some of the evidence presented during the trial was not relevant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Third, they argued that together, all these issues made it impossible for Troutt to get a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Troutt had been denied a fair trial. They ruled that the judge's refusal to let the jury consider his entrapment defense was a significant mistake. Because of this, the court decided to reverse Troutt's conviction and ordered a new trial where the jury could properly consider all the evidence, including his defense. The case highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the right for a defendant to have a jury hear their side of the story.

Continue ReadingF 2003-1036

F-2002-1546

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1546, David Jewel Newton appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. David Jewel Newton was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County and was given a very long sentence of 458 years in prison. He said he did not get a fair trial because there were some biased jurors. Mr. Newton’s lawyer did not properly challenge a juror who was a police officer and should not have served on the jury. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that Mr. Newton's lawyer did not do his job well in defending him. Since the jury should have been fair, the court decided that Mr. Newton deserves a new trial where he can be tried by a new set of jurors who are fair and not biased. The dissenting opinion said that the jurors who were chosen in the trial were impartial and that there was no reason to order a new trial because the rules about jurors were being misunderstood.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1546

F-2002-1370

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1370, Oscar Lee Lamb appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Oscar Lee Lamb was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of five years in prison for each count, with the sentences running consecutively. Lamb challenged the trial court's decision on two main points. First, he argued that there was a mistake when some evidence that was not allowed in the trial was taken to the jury room during their discussions. This was seen as a problem, but the court believed it did not cause any harm to Lamb's case since the content of those pieces of evidence had already been discussed during the trial. The second point brought up by Lamb was more serious. He said that a witness who was an expert gave an opinion on whether or not the victim was telling the truth. The court agreed that this was a mistake because experts should not tell the jury what to believe about who is honest or dishonest. This kind of testimony can really affect the jury's decision, particularly when both sides disagree strongly about what happened. Since the court thought the expert's testimony could have made a difference in how the jury viewed the case, they decided that Lamb should have a new trial. Therefore, the previous court's decision was overturned, and the case was sent back for another trial.

Continue ReadingF-2002-1370

F-2002-548

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-548, Brian Wheatley Fire appealed his conviction for seven counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and remand his case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Brian Wheatley Fire was found guilty by a jury in Oklahoma County of multiple counts of a serious crime. The jury recommended he serve twenty years in prison for each count, and the judge ordered the sentences to be served one after the other, meaning he would spend many years in prison. After getting convicted, Brian Wheatley Fire raised several issues, called propositions of error, which he believed showed he did not get a fair trial. These were a set of complaints about how the trial went and how evidence was presented. The court looked at the arguments made by Brian's side. One important issue was that a social worker and a school counselor said they believed the child involved was telling the truth, which was a problem. These statements could influence how the jury viewed the witness's honesty. The law says that it is up to the jury to decide if someone is telling the truth, and when someone who is not a trial expert vouches for a witness's truthfulness, it can lead to unfairness in the trial. Another issue was related to what happened during questioning. The prosecutor brought up that Brian, after being arrested, didn't speak to police. This should not have happened because it could make people think less of him for not speaking up right away. The law protects people from being judged negatively for choosing to stay silent after being arrested. Brian's silence was used against him repeatedly in questions by the prosecutor and was mentioned again in final remarks. The court found that these two problems together made it impossible for Brian to have a fair trial. They believed that the errors were serious enough to reverse the guilty decision and send the case back for a new trial where these mistakes wouldn't happen again. In conclusion, Brian Wheatley Fire's conviction was overturned, and his case was sent back for a new trial because the errors during his first trial compromised his right to a fair trial.

Continue ReadingF-2002-548

F 2000-321

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.

Continue ReadingF 2000-321

F-2001-1529

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1529, Daniel Kelly Orcutt appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Here's a summary: Daniel Kelly Orcutt was found guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree by a jury. The trial was held in Creek County, and the judge sentenced him to fifty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Orcutt believed he had a fair trial, but he had several complaints about how things went during the trial. He argued that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to separate during their talks. He felt this decision was unfair and took away his rights to a fair trial because they could be influenced by outside information. He pointed out that he objected to this decision when it was made, but it still happened. Orcutt also complained that the prosecutor made comments about him not testifying, which he felt was wrong. He believed that he didn’t get all the information he needed from the state before the trial started, which made it difficult for him to defend himself. Furthermore, he felt the court restricted how he represented himself, even after allowing him to do so. The court agreed with Orcutt that these issues were important. They decided that these errors could lead to a different outcome if the trial were held again. Because of this, the judges in the OCCA decided that he would have a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself properly.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1529

F-2002-24

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-24, Tomas Mendiola Bernal appealed his conviction for maintaining a place for keeping or selling drugs and three counts of delivering and distributing cocaine. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for maintaining a place for selling drugs and ordered a new trial for that charge, but affirmed the convictions and sentences for delivering and distributing cocaine. One member of the court disagreed with some parts of the decision.

Continue ReadingF-2002-24

F-2002-323

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-323, David Dean Wichita appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Forcible Oral Sodomy. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction. One judge dissented. The case focused on whether Wichita had properly waived his right to a jury trial. The court found that there was not enough evidence in the record to show that he understood and agreed to give up this important right. The State agreed that this was a mistake and that the case needed to be looked at again. The judges explained that a person must clearly show they are giving up their right to a jury trial. There was no proof in the record that Wichita made this choice himself or that he did it knowingly and wisely. Because of this error, the judges decided that Wichita should have a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2002-323

F 2002-157

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2002-157, Kenneth Lee Dueitt appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), Possession of a Precursor Substance (Red Phosphorus), Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Methamphetamine), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for Manufacturing Methamphetamine, Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance, and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia while reversing the conviction for Possession of a Precursor Substance and remanding it for a new trial. One judge dissented on the decision regarding the reversal of Count 2.

Continue ReadingF 2002-157

F-2001-1514

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1514, Montain Lamont Maxwell appealed his conviction for Robbery with Firearms. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Montain Lamont Maxwell was tried by a jury and found guilty of robbery using a firearm. The jury decided he should be sentenced to 20 years in prison. Afterwards, he appealed his conviction, saying there were problems during his trial. First, Maxwell claimed the prosecution said things that made it seem like he was guilty for not speaking up during the trial. This goes against his right to remain silent, a protection given by the U.S. Constitution. He argued that the prosecutor asked improper questions and made unfair comments about his silence before and after his arrest. Second, Maxwell said the way he was identified as the robber wasn't reliable, and he argued that the trial court should have told the jury to be careful about believing eyewitness accounts. He also argued that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he committed the robbery with a dangerous weapon. Finally, Maxwell said his lawyer didn’t help him enough during the trial, which violated his rights. The court took a close look at all the problems raised by Maxwell. They found that the prosecution had indeed made mistakes regarding his right to stay quiet. They commented unfairly about his silence, which might have led the jury to think he was hiding something. The court also noted that the evidence against Maxwell came down to conflicting stories between him and the victim. The jury had a hard time reaching a decision and sent many notes during their deliberation. Because of the unfair treatment regarding his silence and the lack of a proper defense from his lawyer, the court decided these issues were serious enough that they couldn't ignore them. In the end, the court reversed Maxwell's conviction and ordered a new trial to make sure he gets a fair chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1514

F-2001-1444

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1444, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd offense) and Driving While Privilege Suspended. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for Driving Under the Influence and ordered a new trial with proper instructions. The judgment for Driving While Privilege Suspended was affirmed. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2001-1444

F-2001-528

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-528, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, granting a new trial. One judge dissented. The case involved the appellant, who was convicted of a serious offense and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. The appellant argued that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. He claimed three main errors: first, that his lawyer did not do enough research on the case; second, that he was not allowed to question a witness about a sexual encounter; and third, that his lawyer had a conflict of interest. Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the lawyer's help was indeed lacking. Specifically, the lawyer did not know important details about two witnesses that could have helped the appellant's defense. This failure to prepare affected the case negatively, indicating that the defense was not done well enough. The court also concluded that the trial judge made a mistake by not allowing the appellant to explore certain evidence regarding the witness. However, since the lawyer did not raise the issue correctly, it did not automatically mean there was a problem. In the end, because of the arguments about the lawyer's effectiveness and the problems with how evidence was handled, the court decided that a new trial was necessary. One judge believed that the trial judge had made the right decisions and that everything should remain as it was. The overall outcome was that the original conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial so the appellant could have another chance to defend himself.

Continue ReadingF-2001-528

F 2001-1506

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-1506, Jose Fajardo appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation and Indecent Proposal to a Child. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Fajardo was found guilty in a trial held in July 2001, where the jury decided he should go to prison for five years for Lewd Molestation and fifteen years for Indecent Proposal, with the sentences to be served one after the other. He appealed these decisions. Fajardo argued nine different reasons why his trial was unfair. He thought the court made mistakes, like not allowing his lawyer to question a juror properly, which he said made it hard for him to get a fair trial. He also said his lawyer didn’t do a good job because important witnesses were not there during the trial. Another point he made was that charging him with two separate crimes instead of one was unfair. After looking at everything, the court decided that one specific mistake was serious enough to warrant a new trial. The court found that a special advocate, who was allowed to help the victim during the trial, should not have been there because there was no law allowing that in this type of case. The special advocate acted in a very active role and helped the prosecution, which made the trial feel unfair to Fajardo. Because this was a big mistake that affected the fairness of the trial, the court ordered a new trial. The other arguments made by Fajardo did not need to be looked at since this one reason was enough to lead to a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-1506

F-2001-338

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-338, Gene Paul Ray appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Paul Ray was found guilty of two counts of Lewd Molestation but was not guilty on six other related charges. The jury gave him a punishment of ten years for each count, and those sentences would be served one after the other. Ray appealed for many reasons. He first argued that it was wrong for a special advocate to help prosecute him. He believed this went against his rights. The court agreed that this was a mistake because the advocate was not supposed to be involved in his case based on the law. The advocate acted like a second lawyer against Ray, which was unfair. Next, Ray claimed that the court made a mistake by allowing an expert to speak about “child sexual accommodation syndrome” before the victims testified. The court found that this was not done properly and that it could have made the jury more likely to believe the victims’ stories without proper evidence. Ray also said that it was wrong for the court to allow the parents of the child victims to testify about what their children said. This meant the jury heard claims of abuse more times than they should have, making the children's stories seem more believable than they might be. Ray argued that he was also unfairly treated when the court allowed the prosecution to talk about his past drinking problems to attack his character. The court agreed that this kind of information shouldn’t have been used in that way, especially since the prosecution did not show it related to the case. Finally, Ray argued that all these mistakes added up to make it impossible for him to have a fair trial. The court agreed and decided that the combination of these errors meant he wasn't treated fairly in the trial. In summary, the court decided to reverse Ray's convictions and ordered a new trial so that he could have a fair chance to defend himself in light of the mistakes that were made during the original trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-338

F-2001-106

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-106, Billy Mack Downey appealed his conviction for Murder in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, sending the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. Billy Mack Downey was convicted of murder by a jury in Carter County. He was sentenced to forty years in prison. Downey appealed his conviction, raising thirteen different complaints about how the trial was conducted and claims that he did not receive a fair trial. Here are the main issues Downey raised in his appeal: 1. He argued that it was wrong for the trial court to allow victim impact evidence during the trial, which should only be presented during the sentencing phase. 2. He claimed that the prosecution unfairly increased the credibility of its main witnesses. 3. Downey believed his father should have been allowed to testify, and that the prosecutor took advantage of this situation during closing arguments. 4. He also said the prosecutor acted improperly in a way that affected his chance for a fair trial. 5. Downey filed a motion for a new trial, which he claimed the trial court incorrectly denied. 6. He pointed out errors in how the State impeached one of his defense witnesses. 7. Downey thought the trial judge wrongly instructed the jury on matters related to the law and the testimonies of his co-defendants. 8. He believed certain comments from the judge during the trial may have influenced the jury’s opinion about his guilt. 9. Downey felt he should have been told that his co-defendants were accomplices, which could have affected how the jury viewed their testimonies. 10. He claimed the judge gave an instruction during closing arguments that confused the jury. 11. Downey argued that the collection of errors during the trial ultimately deprived him of a fair verdict. 12. He mentioned the judge wrongly ordered him to pay restitution without sufficient evidence of loss. After reviewing the evidence and considering all of Downey's claims, the court found that he had been deprived of a fair trial due to multiple serious errors. Particularly, it highlighted the combined effect of several of the errors as being significantly damaging to Downey's case. The court specifically identified that the trial court should not have allowed victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial and agreed that Downey was wrongly denied the opportunity to have his father testify. The court believed these issues could have changed the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court overturned the original decision and ordered that a new trial be held for Downey, where he would have the chance to address these issues. This ruling aimed to ensure that he could receive a fair trial as guaranteed to him under the law.

Continue ReadingF-2001-106

F 2001-873

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-873, Jerome Wade Hennesy appealed his conviction for Trafficking in a Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine Base). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. In this case, Jerome Wade Hennesy was found guilty of trafficking cocaine by a jury. The jury decided he should serve ten years in prison and pay a fine of $25,000. Hennesy appealed, arguing that the evidence used against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt and that there was unfair evidence related to other crimes. The court agreed with Hennesy on the second point about the unfair evidence, saying it was a serious mistake that affected the trial. The judges mentioned that since the evidence against him was mostly based on circumstances and not very strong, the mistake couldn't be ignored. They decided that Hennesy needed a new trial, so he could have a fair chance to defend himself. The judges noted that the first point about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt was no longer important because they were giving him a new trial based on the unfair evidence. They expected the state to have stronger evidence if Hennesy was tried again. So, they made the decision to reverse the previous judgment and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-873

F-2001-651

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-651, Vadell Lamont Wright appealed his conviction for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle and Using a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions. One judge dissented. Wright was found guilty by a jury and received a sentence of twenty years for the unauthorized use of a vehicle and twenty-five years for using a vehicle in connection with the discharge of a firearm, with both sentences to be served one after the other. He decided to appeal his convictions. The court reviewed several claims raised by Wright regarding his trial. The main issues included: 1. Seeing the defendant in handcuffs could have influenced the jury. 2. There was not enough evidence to say that Wright used the vehicle to make the shooting easier. 3. The court did not allow the defendant to explain his belief that he was allowed to use the car, known as a defense of mistake. 4. Evidence about other crimes affected Wright's right to a fair trial. 5. Communication between the jury and the trial judge was improper. 6. The trial court made mistakes regarding immunity for a co-defendant. 7. The jury was not given the option of lesser charges. 8. Overall, multiple errors deprived Wright of a fair trial. Focusing on the second issue, the court noted that Wright used a stolen vehicle to flee from police. He was in the vehicle with another person who fired a gun at an officer during the chase. However, the court found that simply using the car did not meet the legal requirement that it had to help make the shooting occur. There wasn’t enough evidence to show that the act of using the car was linked to the shooting directly. Additionally, in regards to possible mistakes about using the vehicle, the trial court's instructions did not help the jury understand what was being asked about having permission to use the car. Wright believed he had permission from the person who was with him and thought he could use the vehicle, but the trial court did not clearly explain this possibility to the jury. As a result, the court decided to reverse Wright's conviction for shooting from a vehicle and dismissed that charge. They also decided to send the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle charge back for a new trial, stating that the earlier jury did not get all the right information to make a fair decision. In conclusion, the court found that Wright should not have been convicted based on the evidence presented and that he deserved a chance to argue his case again in a new trial.

Continue ReadingF-2001-651

F 2001-378

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-378, Phillip Scott Coulter appealed his conviction for three counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Phillip Scott Coulter was found guilty by a jury in a case about serious allegations of wrongdoing involving children. The trial happened in Kingfisher County, and the jury decided to give him a sentence of five years for each count. These sentences would be served one after the other. Coulter did not agree with the decision and asked the court to review the case. He raised several points to argue why the decision should be overturned. First, he said that the evidence wasn’t strong enough to support his conviction. He believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he acted inappropriately with any child. Next, he claimed that the prosecutor used improper tactics during the trial that made it unfair. He also said that his lawyer did not represent him well and this made it harder for him to defend himself in court. Lastly, he pointed out that he was not allowed to properly question one of the witnesses about things that had happened to her before, which he believed was important for his defense. After looking at all these arguments and the evidence presented during the trial, the court agreed that one of Coulter's rights was not respected. Specifically, they ruled that he was not allowed to question the witness in a way that could show whether she was being honest. This was important because it affected the outcome of the trial. Because of this, the court decided to reverse the conviction and said there would have to be a new trial. Since they were reversing the case based on this issue, they did not need to rule on the other arguments Coulter had made. In summary, the court found that Coulter's right to confront and question his accuser was not honored, leading to their decision to grant him a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-378