Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2404(A)(1) Archives

F-2004-427

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 26, 2007
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-427, Emily Michelle Dowdy appealed her conviction for First-Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm her conviction but modified her sentence to twenty-five years imprisonment. One judge dissented from the decision to modify the sentence. Emily was charged after a fatal car accident that resulted in the death of another driver, Ryan Brewer. Emily's blood test later showed a high blood alcohol concentration, indicating she was driving under the influence. In her defense, she claimed she was involuntarily intoxicated, suggesting that she may have been given a drug without her knowledge, such as GHB or rohypnol, often associated with date-rape cases. Emily argued that she could not remember what happened after she took a friend to her car at a bar. The trial included a significant amount of expert testimony regarding the effects of GHB, but the state argued that Emily was likely just drunk from alcohol. Various witnesses testified about her drinking at the bar that night and her generally good driving record. On appeal, Emily raised several arguments regarding the fairness of her trial, alleging ineffective assistance of her counsel, improper admission of certain evidence regarding her character, and comments made by the prosecutor. The court reviewed testimony regarding whether Emily had been properly advised about her rights during police questioning and whether any misconduct had affected the jurors' views. After thorough review, the court concluded that the trial was fair overall, although it noted that one witness's hearsay testimony, which was not properly admissible, could have potentially influenced the jury's view of Emily. Ultimately, this led to a modification of her sentence, although the conviction itself remained intact. The dissenting judge felt that the original forty-year sentence was appropriate and did not believe that the limited hearsay testimony had a significant impact on the final outcome.

F-2004-146

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-146, Luke Sinclair appealed his conviction for Murder in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld, but he would be resentenced. One judge dissented. Luke Sinclair was found guilty of murdering James Robbins by shooting him four times in the chest. The incident happened in the early hours after Sinclair and his friends had been drinking at a bar. Robbins, a retired Army veteran, approached Sinclair and his friends in the parking lot, trying to engage them in conversation. Sinclair and his friends found Robbins to be strange and made dismissive comments. Sinclair even jokingly suggested that Robbins should be shot. Believing they were joking, Sinclair's friends egged him on when he drove after Robbins, blocked his van, and then shot him. After the shooting, Sinclair instructed his friends to keep quiet about the incident. Sinclair admitted on appeal that the evidence against him was strong and that he was guilty. Sinclair raised several issues in his appeal, particularly concerning the sentencing process. He argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence about his character during sentencing and that his lawyer did not provide effective representation. The court found these claims unpersuasive, noting that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and suggesting that presenting this character evidence could have hurt Sinclair's case more than helped it. One of the significant points in Sinclair’s appeal related to whether the jury was instructed about the state law that required defendants convicted of murder to serve 85% of their sentences before being eligible for parole. Sinclair argued that jurors mistakenly believed a life sentence meant he could be released after a few years. The court agreed with Sinclair regarding the instructions on the 85% rule, so they decided to reverse the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Additionally, Sinclair complained about the prosecutor's arguments in closing that he was a dangerous man lacking conscience, which were not supported by the evidence. The court found that the prosecutor's statements were problematic and influenced the jury in reaching their sentencing decision. In conclusion, while Sinclair's conviction remained intact, the court ruled that he should be resentenced due to the errors in the jury instructions and the inappropriate comments made during his trial.