Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Archives - Page 8 of 9

F-2005-987

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 4, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-987, Jimmy Douglas Letterman appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of controlled drug (methamphetamine), unlawful possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court affirmed his convictions for possession of methamphetamine, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and unlawful possession of paraphernalia, but reversed his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented.

F-2005-829

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 17, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-829, Clarence Andre Gatewood appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm Gatewood's conviction but remand for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Gatewood was found guilty by a jury of Second Degree Murder after initially being charged with First Degree Murder. He was sentenced to life in prison. During the appeal, he raised several issues, including that the trial court didn't notify his lawyer about a jury note, denied his request for a specific sentencing instruction, and allowed an involuntary confession to be used against him. The court examined these claims. It determined that Gatewood's confession was voluntary since he was aware of his rights, was sober, and spoke to the police without any threats or promises. Therefore, this part of his appeal was denied. However, the court found that Gatewood should have received instructions about parole eligibility, based on a previous case ruling. Since the jury had even asked a question related to the meaning of a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the court felt that this instruction was necessary. Consequently, while Gatewood's conviction stands, his sentence was overturned, and the case was sent back to lower court to determine a new sentence. The court did not consider his claim about the severity of his sentence because the other findings made it unnecessary to address.

RE-2006-135

Post author:Staff
Post published:November 14, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2006-135, Misty Dawn Nelson appealed her conviction for the revocation of her suspended sentence. In a published decision, the court decided to grant her appeal and remand the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Misty Dawn Nelson had originally pleaded guilty to a crime and received a four-year suspended sentence, meaning she wouldn’t have to go to jail unless she broke the rules of her probation. However, the State later claimed she broke the rules by committing new crimes. The judge then revoked two years of her suspended sentence and decided the remaining two years would be on probation. Misty argued that the judge made a mistake by imposing her revoked sentence to run consecutively with another sentence she was serving. This would mean her total time under supervision would last longer than what was originally set. The court agreed with Misty, stating that a judge cannot extend a suspended sentence beyond its original end date. The court found that the revocation order was invalid and needed to be sent back to the District Court to see if the revocation was warranted or not. The court mentioned similar cases where sentences also faced issues of being extended unfairly. In conclusion, Misty's appeal was granted, and the case was returned to the District Court to decide what to do next about the suspended sentence.

S-2005-1250

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1250, Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assaulting a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling, which had granted Dinkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during an illegal search. One judge dissented.

F-2005-874

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-874, Leroy Mitchell, Jr. appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and grant him a new trial. One judge dissented. Leroy Mitchell, Jr. was found guilty of a serious crime after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but five of those years were suspended, meaning he didn't have to serve that time unless he got into trouble again. Mitchell believed there were problems during his trial and decided to appeal. He had several reasons for his appeal. First, he argued that some statements made during the trial were unfair because they were hearsay. Hearsay is when someone repeats what another person said rather than saying what they directly experienced. In Mitchell's case, he felt that the way the hearsay was used violated his rights, particularly his right to confront witnesses against him. Also, he claimed that some of the evidence presented in court was unreliable and that he did not have a fair chance to defend himself. He worried that the evidence related to other crimes might have influenced the judge unfairly. Mitchell also said that his lawyer did not perform well during the trial, which led to more problems. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Mitchell's rights were not properly protected during the trial. Specifically, they found that the court allowed too much hearsay without the necessary checks to ensure it was reliable. This made it hard to believe the outcome of the trial was fair. As a result, the court decided to reverse the original judgment and said that Mitchell deserves another trial where these issues can be addressed properly.

S-2005-1067

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 18, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

RE-2005-1032

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 26, 2006
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2005-1032, Natalie Blades appealed her conviction for revocation of her suspended sentences. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of her suspended sentences but remanded the case to ensure that the sentences would run concurrently instead of consecutively. One member of the court dissented.

F-2005-700

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 14, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-700, Harry Oliver West appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Driving While License is Canceled/Suspended/Revoked. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and send the case back for a new trial. One judge dissented. West was found guilty by a jury, which decided that he should serve a total of 45 years in prison for the first offense and 1 year for the second offense, with some fines included as well. However, during the trial, the jury was not given proper instructions about what driving under the influence and driving while impaired mean. Even though West did not ask for these instructions, the court agreed that this was a significant mistake that affected the case. Due to this error, the court found that West deserved another chance to have his case heard, which means a new trial will take place. As a result, the decisions made in the trial are reversed, and the case gets remanded, which means it goes back to the lower court for a fresh start.

F-2005-320

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 11, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-320, Duncan appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Duncan was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter in Pushmataha County, and he was sentenced to four years in prison, with the last year suspended. He argued that his trial had several problems that made it unfair, including issues with witness testimony and jury instructions. The main issue in Duncan's appeal was that a doctor’s assistant’s testimony from a preliminary hearing was used at the trial, even though the assistant did not appear in person to be questioned. Duncan claimed this was wrong because he did not get a chance to confront the assistant and ask him questions. The court agreed with Duncan, stating that it is important for a defendant to see and question witnesses in person to ensure a fair trial. The court pointed out that the rules used to allow the assistant's testimony did not apply to criminal trials, and therefore, the testimony should not have been part of the evidence. The absence of this testimony was significant enough that it could have affected the trial's outcome. Because of this error, Duncan's conviction was overturned, and the court ordered a new trial, meaning Duncan will have the chance to defend himself again in court. The court decided not to consider other arguments Duncan made since the first issue was enough to reverse the decision.

F 2005-362

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 16, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2005-362, Pat Lee Richardson appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented regarding the sentence modification. Pat Lee Richardson was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter after a trial without a jury in Comanche County. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that he had a defense based on Oklahoma's Make My Day Law, which allows people to use force against intruders in their homes. Richardson claimed the victim was an intruder when he was stabbed. The court explained that the Make My Day Law applies only when someone enters a home, but the victim was standing on the porch, not inside the house. Therefore, Richardson could not use that law as a defense. The court also noted that stabbing the victim a second time while he was on the ground was not justified. Richardson argued that his lawyer did not provide good assistance by not presenting the Make My Day Law defense. However, the court believed this did not affect the outcome of his trial since the law did not apply to his case. He also argued that his actions were justifiable as self-defense. The court stated that there was no evidence to show that he was in danger at the moment he stabbed the victim, considering the victim presented no serious threat. Lastly, Richardson argued that his 35-year sentence was too harsh. The court agreed and modified his sentence to 20 years, feeling that the original sentence was shocking and too severe when taking into account certain factors of the case. Overall, the court upheld the guilty verdict but decided to reduce the prison time that Pat Lee Richardson would have to serve.

S-2005-866

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2006
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.

F-2005-814

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 23, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-814, James Joseph Wymer appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Wymer was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to forty-five years in prison. He argued that the jury was not fully instructed about the law regarding his sentence, which meant he wasn't told he had to serve eighty-five percent of it. He also felt that his sentence was too long and that the evidence against him wasn't strong enough to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After looking closely at both the facts and the law, the court believed that the jury should have been informed about the eighty-five percent rule, but they did not think this mistake was enough to set aside the conviction. Therefore, they decided to lower Wymer's sentence from forty-five years to thirty-five years. The court also considered whether his sentence was excessive. They found that given Wymer's past convictions, the sentence was fair and not shocking or unreasonable. Finally, they reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was enough proof to show that Wymer took part in the burglary rather than just standing by. The final decision was to keep the conviction but change the punishment to thirty-five years.

M 2005-0332

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2006
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the conviction and modify it to a lesser charge of speeding. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant received a speeding ticket on September 17, 2003, for going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. During the trial, the judge found the appellant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 30 days to serve and the rest suspended, along with a $300 fine. The appellant did not appeal in time but was allowed to do so later. During the appeal, the appellant claimed two main points. First, he argued that his speeding did not meet the level of culpable negligence needed for reckless driving. The law requires more than just speeding to prove reckless driving. The state argued that speeding around other cars during the day showed enough negligence to support the conviction. Second, the appellant contended that he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness after the judge asked a question about intersecting roads. The judge’s questioning provided new information that had not been discussed before. The court pointed out that the appellant had the right to confront witnesses and cross-examine them, which was denied in this case. Ultimately, the court found that there was not enough evidence to support the reckless driving charge and modified the conviction to speeding instead. The court agreed to vacate the reckless driving sentence and sent the case back to the district court for proper sentencing on the speeding charge.

M 2005-0332

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 24, 2006
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2005-0332, the appellant appealed his conviction for reckless driving. In a published decision, the court decided to modify the conviction from reckless driving to speeding due to insufficient evidence of reckless behavior. One judge dissented. The case started when the appellant received a traffic ticket for speeding, going 90 mph in a 65 mph zone. The traffic stop occurred on a dry day with moderate traffic. The officer who stopped the appellant said he did not see anything dangerous other than the speeding. The appellant was guilty of speeding, but the state argued that speeding was enough to prove reckless driving. For reckless driving, the law requires showing that someone acted with culpable negligence, which means the behavior must be more than just speeding. The court cited past cases that supported this idea, indicating that simply going over the speed limit is not automatically reckless driving. The state claimed that because there were other cars on the road and the appellant passed an intersection, that made the speeding reckless. However, the appellant pointed out that while he was speeding, he did not engage in reckless behavior that would endanger others. Another issue in the case was that the trial judge asked a witness about intersections but did not allow the appellant to ask the witness questions afterward. The court found that this was a mistake because everyone has the right to question witnesses against them. In the end, the court decided that while the appellant was guilty of speeding, there wasn't enough evidence for the reckless driving charge. They changed the conviction to speeding, removed the reckless driving sentence, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide the proper punishment for speeding.

C 2005-628

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 15, 2006
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C 2005-628, Roscoe Dansby appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter and Obtaining Money by Means of a False Check. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. The court found that Dansby was deprived of effective assistance of counsel during a critical stage of the process because his attorney had a conflict of interest. Thus, the court remanded the case for a new hearing on the motion to withdraw guilty pleas and ordered that a conflict-free counsel be appointed. One judge dissented.

F-2004-971

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 6, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-971, Donald Eugene Stevenson appealed his conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify his sentence to life imprisonment. One judge dissented. Donald Eugene Stevenson was found guilty by a jury for hurting a child, which is known as child abuse. The jury gave him a very long sentence of 100 years and 3 months in prison. After he appealed, he pointed out some problems he believed happened during his trial that should lead to a new trial or a shortened sentence. Firstly, he argued that the jury saw too much information about the child's suffering, including a video that was too emotional and shouldn’t have been shown. This, he said, made the jury feel too strongly against him. However, the court found that the video was important to show how badly the child was hurt, and it helped explain what happened, so they believed it was okay to include it. Since he didn’t complain about the video during the trial, the court didn’t see any major mistake. Secondly, Stevenson said there were details about his previous crimes that shouldn’t have been shared. The court agreed that including this information was wrong because it might have made the jury think he deserved a harsher punishment than they already decided. Because of this mistake and those details from his past, the court decided to change his punishment to life in prison instead of a long stretch of years. In the end, the court said Stevenson’s conviction stood—meaning he was still found guilty—but they changed how long he would have to stay in prison. One judge didn’t fully agree with changing the sentence to life, but the majority of the judges went along with it.

F 2004-989

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-989, John Fitzgerald Kessee appealed his conviction for First Degree Robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Kessee was found guilty of robbing someone and had a long history of prior convictions, which led to a heavy sentence of ninety-nine years. He claimed that there wasn’t enough evidence to support his conviction and said that the way he was tried for the second time after a mistrial violated his rights. He also argued that there were mistakes made during the sentencing that should change his punishment. After looking closely at the case and the arguments made, the court found that there was enough proof for the jury to reach a decision about Kessee’s guilt. They decided that the issues surrounding the mistrial didn’t violate his rights. However, they agreed that the way the prosecutor talked about Kessee’s past sentences was wrong and affected his right to a fair trial. As a result, the court decided to lower his sentence to forty-five years in prison instead of ninety-nine. While most judges agreed with the decision, one judge disagreed with changing the sentence, believing the jury's decision should stand as is.

F-2004-691

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 2, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-691, Cleon Christopher Johnson appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including third-degree arson, robbery with a firearm, accessory after the fact to shooting with intent to kill, and possession of a stolen vehicle. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction for third-degree arson, but affirmed the convictions for the other charges. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the arson conviction. Johnson was charged with serious crimes in Tulsa County and was found guilty by a jury. They gave him a total of 89 years in prison for his actions. On appeal, Johnson argued that there was not enough evidence for the arson conviction, that the robbery charge was not proven, and that there was misconduct during the trial. The court agreed with Johnson that there wasn't enough evidence to prove he committed arson, as the value of the property burned was not established. They stated that to prove third-degree arson, it's necessary to show the value of the property was at least $50. Since there was no proof of this value, that specific conviction was overturned. However, they found that there was enough evidence to support the robbery conviction. The jury was able to conclude that Johnson played an important role in that crime. On the point of prosecutorial misconduct, the court mentioned that Johnson's attorney did not object at trial, which limited their review. The comments made during the trial were not serious enough to be considered a significant error. So, the final decision was to reverse the third-degree arson conviction and send it back for dismissal, while upholding the other convictions against Johnson. One judge thought that the evidence was strong enough to support the arson conviction and disagreed with the reversal.

F 2004-1002

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-1002, Benny Paul McCartney appealed his conviction for attempted manufacturing of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute, and possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for the first two counts but to reverse and dismiss the third count due to double jeopardy concerns. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of the third count, arguing that the appellant violated two different laws and should be held accountable for both.

F-2004-729

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 26, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-729, Candy Mae Easton appealed her conviction for Manufacturing Methamphetamine and Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine but affirmed her conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled drug. One judge dissented concerning the reversal of the manufacturing charge. Candy Mae Easton was on trial after neighbors reported a strong smell related to methamphetamine coming from the home of her co-defendant. Officers investigating found evidence that suggested meth was being made in the house, including white powder and other materials commonly used to manufacture meth. Easton admitted to using meth, but she said she did not help make it. The court examined whether there was enough proof to show that Easton helped her co-defendant in making the drug. The majority opinion stated that just knowing about the manufacturing and using the drug doesn’t mean she encouraged or assisted in making it. The appellate court mentioned that encouragement must be shown by some action or words, which were not present in Easton’s case. As a result, Easton’s conviction for manufacturing meth was reversed, meaning she was found not guilty of that charge. However, the conviction for unlawful possession was upheld because her sentence and fine were within the legal limits and were not seen as too harsh. The dissenting opinion believed there was enough evidence to support that Easton aided in the manufacturing, and thus would have kept her conviction for that charge. The judges' roles were discussed in terms of assessing evidence and the credibility of decisions made by the trial judge, emphasizing that it isn’t their place to change those factual decisions based on their opinions. Ultimately, the case was sent back to be corrected only in terms of the record regarding the possession conviction, while the manufacturing conviction was dismissed.

C-2005-120

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 19, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.

C-2004-598

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 12, 2005
Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2004-598, Seno McKinley Speed appealed his conviction for multiple charges, including possession of a controlled substance, eluding a police officer, and resisting an officer, among others. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Speed’s request to withdraw his guilty pleas for the misdemeanor charges and allowed him to proceed to trial. The court agreed there was no factual basis for those misdemeanor pleas, which led to the decision. There was no dissent in this case.

F 2004-0328

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 13, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2004-0328, the appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs and distribution of a controlled substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the acceleration of the appellant's deferred sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant, who was 19 years old, pled guilty to the charges and received a five-year deferred sentence in each case after completing a rehabilitation program. However, the state later sought to accelerate these sentences due to alleged violations of probation. During a hearing, the judge concluded that the appellant had not complied with conditions and imposed a lengthy sentence of twenty-five years for each charge, running consecutively. The appellant argued several points on appeal. He claimed that the acceleration hearing was unfair because he did not have a lawyer to help him. The court agreed that he had not properly waived his right to counsel. The judge's decision to proceed without an attorney was found to be incorrect, as there was no evidence that the appellant could afford a lawyer. Furthermore, the court noted that there were other errors in the process that impacted the fairness of the hearing. The appellate court found merit in the appellant's first argument about not having a lawyer and therefore reversed the acceleration of his sentences. The judges on the panel emphasized that if a new hearing takes place, the appellant must be represented by a lawyer and informed of his rights regarding any plea agreements.

F-2004-576

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-576, Jimmy Allen Phillips appealed his conviction for two counts of Rape by Instrumentation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgments but modify the sentences to be served concurrently. One judge dissented. Phillips was found guilty after a trial in the Rogers County District Court. The jury recommended that he serve a total of 34 years in prison—12 years for the first count and 22 years for the second count. Phillips argued that he did not get a fair trial because of inappropriate remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. The court examined the entire case, including records and evidence presented. They agreed that some comments made by the prosecutor were improper and potentially harmful. For example, the prosecutor suggested his personal belief in the case and made remarks that tied the actions to a divine judgment, which the court found inappropriate. Despite recognizing these issues, the court concluded that they did not warrant a complete reversal of the convictions. Instead, they determined that Phillips’ sentences should run concurrently, meaning he would serve the time at the same time rather than back-to-back. This decision aimed to address the improper comments while still upholding the jury's verdict.

F-2004-197

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2005
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-197, McNeil appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, and speeding. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. McNeil was convicted by a jury for three counts: possession of methamphetamine, resisting an officer, and speeding. The judge sentenced him to two years in prison for the drug charge and imposed fines and jail time for the other charges. McNeil believed he did not get a fair trial for several reasons. Firstly, he argued that the jury heard about other crimes that did not relate to the current case, which might have made them think he was a worse person than he actually is. Secondly, he claimed that a police officer made comments during the trial that unfairly influenced the jury against him. In reviewing the case, the court found that one of the officer’s comments was particularly damaging and could have influenced the jury's decision. The judge's warnings to the jury did not fix the problem, and since the evidence against McNeil was not strong, it was decided he deserved a new trial. Because the appeal was successful based on these issues, the court did not need to discuss the other points McNeil raised about his trial. The outcome was that McNeil's conviction was overturned, and the case was sent back for a new trial where he could have another chance to defend himself.