In OCCA case No. N 2014-153, Harris appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court affirmed the death sentence, finding sufficient evidence of his crime and rejecting claims of an incomplete trial record. One judge dissented. [occa_caption]
In OCCA case No. F-2009-385, Jeffrey Eugene Rowan appealed his conviction for Child Sexual Abuse by a Person Responsible for a Child's Health, Safety, or Welfare. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Rowan's motion for a new trial and dismissed the appeal because the case would be retried. One judge dissented. Rowan was convicted in the District Court of Pittsburg County and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. His conviction was based on various testimonies, including his own admission to investigators about inappropriate behavior with his stepdaughter and medical testimony suggesting signs of abuse. However, after the conviction, new evidence came to light regarding the medical witness that may have affected the credibility of the case against Rowan. The new evidence showed that the physician assistant who examined the child had her medical license suspended due to drug abuse and misconduct. This detail raised concerns about the reliability of her testimony, which was crucial to the prosecution's case. The court found that this new evidence could change the outcome of the original trial and therefore ordered a new trial. Rowan's original appeal was deemed moot because the case would be retried, and there was no need to evaluate the specific claims raised in that appeal. As a result, the motion for a new trial was granted, and the case was sent back to the lower court for another trial.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-896, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree arson, assault and battery domestic abuse, assault and battery, and public intoxication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments and sentences for counts I and II but modified the sentences for counts III and IV by vacating the fines imposed on those counts. One judge dissented. Michael Wayne Schulze was found guilty of starting a fire, which was labeled as first-degree arson, along with committing several misdemeanors related to domestic abuse and public intoxication. The jury recommended lengthy prison time and fines for these actions. Schulze argued that the evidence against him was not strong enough to prove his guilt for arson. He also claimed that the instructions given to the jury were misleading regarding his possible sentences and fines. He sought modifications to the imposed fines and sentences, while also asserting that the prosecutor behaved improperly during the trial. The court examined the arguments and determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for arson. They agreed that the jury was wrongly instructed about potential sentencing for certain charges, which warranted relief by adjusting the fines for the misdemeanor counts. However, they maintained the convictions and sentences for the arson and domestic abuse counts, deciding that the errors in jury instructions did not severely impact the outcome of the case. Overall, the court upheld the majority of the original decisions but aimed to correct parts of the sentencing that were found to be incorrect, ensuring justice was served.
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.
In OCCA case No. F-2004-410, Twyla Tanner appealed her conviction for Embezzlement by Bailee. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence from forty-five years to twenty years of imprisonment. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Twyla Tanner was found guilty after a jury trial. The court had to decide on several issues raised by Tanner regarding her trial, including errors in denying her motion for a new trial, not allowing a witness to testify, the sufficiency of evidence, the length of her sentence, and whether all of these issues combined affected her right to a fair trial. The court determined that the trial judge made the right choices in handling these issues. They agreed that Tanner’s request for a new trial was not given because it was late. They also supported the judge's decision to prevent a witness from testifying because Tanner did not follow the rules for sharing her evidence in time. The court found enough evidence for the jury to decide she was guilty of stealing. However, they thought that the original sentence of forty-five years was very harsh for the crime and the situation. They changed it to twenty years in prison after considering the facts, including that she did not cause any damage and returned the vehicle she was accused of embezzling. One judge disagreed with reducing Tanner's sentence, believing that the jury's decision was justified based on her past criminal record and that the prosecution's comments during the trial did not unfairly influence the jury.