Prejudicial Evidence Archives - Page 2 of 2

F-2002-1351

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 29, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-1351, Barrett appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Randy Barrett was found guilty of First Degree Murder in a trial. The jury said he should go to prison for life and pay a fine. Barrett thought the judge and the jury made mistakes. He raised several points in his appeal, saying there were errors during his trial. One of the main issues was that Barrett's lawyer did not tell him about the lesser charges that he could have been found guilty of instead of First Degree Murder. Barrett felt that he didn’t understand this and claimed his lawyer gave him bad advice. Barrett wanted to fight for a chance to potentially get a lesser sentence but didn’t pursue it because he was worried his lawyer said that mentioning those charges could lead to a longer prison sentence. Barrett argued that the evidence against him didn’t really support the murder charge, especially the claim about kidnapping the victim as part of the crime. He also thought the jury saw unfair photographs that shouldn’t have been leaked during the trial, hurting his chance for a fair trial. Additionally, he believed his lawyer wasn’t allowed to explain certain details about the case, which affected the way the jury viewed his actions. The court looked carefully at Barrett’s complaint. It found that Barrett was right in saying his lawyer didn't give him good advice about applying for the lesser charges. This misguidance led Barrett to give up an important option that could have benefited him. The court pointed out that Barrett’s lawyer was confused and didn't accurately inform him about his chances for parole based on different sentences. Because of these mistakes by his lawyer, the court decided that Barrett deserved another trial to get a fair chance. They reversed the earlier decision and sent the case back to start again. One judge disagreed with this choice, believing that Barrett was a smart individual who made a choice in consultation with his lawyer and understanding the risks.

F-2002-613

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 20, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2002-613, Muhajir A. Sango appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute, after Former Conviction of Two or More Drug Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Sango was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to thirty years in prison and a fine of $10,000. He raised several arguments on appeal. He claimed that evidence showing his gang affiliation was irrelevant and unfairly influenced the jury. He also argued that his lawyer did not properly object to this evidence, which made his legal representation ineffective. Lastly, he believed the jury was given incorrect information about his possible sentence. Upon reviewing the case, the court agreed that there was an error in the jury instructions concerning the punishment range for habitual drug offenders. The court concluded that the jury was mistakenly told that the minimum sentence was twenty years instead of the correct ten years. Despite agreeing with some of Sango's concerns, the court found that the introduction of gang-related evidence did not significantly impact the jury's decision, and the arguments about ineffective assistance did not hold up. As a result, his conviction was upheld, but the court mandated that the sentencing should be redone to correct the earlier mistake.

F 2000-862

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 19, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-862, Taress Lamont Owens appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the $11,000 fine. One judge dissented. Taress Lamont Owens was found guilty by a jury in a case related to illegal drug possession. He was sentenced to 60 years in prison and a fine of $11,000. Taress believed there were several reasons why his conviction should be overturned or the fine changed, so he appealed the decision. First, he argued that the evidence against him should not have been allowed in court because it was obtained in violation of his rights. However, the judges felt that the search was legal because it was done with consent. They confirmed that the evidence was strong enough to convict him based on the facts of the case. Taress also thought that the evidence presented against him was not enough for a conviction. But the judges disagreed, saying there was sufficient proof that he intended to sell the drugs. He mentioned that some evidence was not relevant to the case, but the judges found the officer’s testimony useful to show the intention behind his actions. Taress raised issues about his rights being violated and that he did not receive proper help from his lawyer during the trial. The judges looked at these claims and stated that there was no proof that he had been poorly represented in court. Finally, while the judges agreed on most points, they all felt that the fine imposed by the jury was too high according to the law. They decided to cancel the fine because the jury's instructions were incorrect regarding whether the fine should be mandatory. In conclusion, the court upheld Taress Lamont Owens' conviction but nullified the excessive fine, allowing him some relief from the financial penalty imposed during the trial.

F-2000-805

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 18, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-805, Dustin Loy Wells appealed his conviction for several crimes, including Shooting with Intent to Kill and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm most of the convictions but reversed one conviction related to assault. One judge dissented on the decision to reverse that conviction. Dustin Loy Wells was tried in a jury trial and found guilty of multiple charges. The trial court then sentenced him to a total of forty-five years in prison and imposed several fines. Wells believed he was unfairly convicted and claimed there were mistakes made during his trial. He raised several points of error on appeal. First, he argued that the trial court should have separated (or severed) his different charges for trial, but the court found that joining them was appropriate. Second, he said there was a mistake when certain identification evidence was allowed. While the court agreed this was an error, it was considered harmless because there was strong other evidence against him. Third, Wells argued that there was not enough evidence to support one of his assault convictions and the court agreed, reversing that specific conviction. Further, he contended that some evidence should not have been admitted at all, but the court found that the trial court had made the right decision. Wells also claimed there was not enough proof that he intended to kill when he shot someone, but the court concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reach that conclusion. Wells pointed to what he believed was prosecutorial misconduct, claiming he did not get a fair trial because the prosecutor had made improper statements about him. However, the court decided that these actions did not change the outcome of the trial. Finally, he claimed that the combined errors were serious enough to warrant a new trial, but the court found that only one conviction needed to be reversed. In summary, while the court upheld most of Wells’s conviction and sentence, it found that one of the assault convictions should be dismissed. One judge disagreed with this part of the decision.

F 2000-446

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 4, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-446, Christopher Edward VanAnden appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Christopher VanAnden was found guilty by a jury of serious charges, including First Degree Rape by Instrumentation and Lewd Molestation. After the trial, he was sentenced to five years for the first charge and three years for the second, with both sentences to be served at the same time. After his conviction, VanAnden argued several points in his appeal. He believed he was unfairly denied the chance to present important witness testimony, that his rights were violated by obtaining an involuntary written statement, that there was not enough evidence to convict him, and that admitting evidence of his other crimes influenced the jury unfairly. The court looked closely at these issues and agreed with VanAnden, deciding that the evidence of other crimes he allegedly committed was particularly problematic. The court pointed out that this evidence was not shown to be connected to the current case in a clear and convincing way, meaning it should not have been allowed at trial. Ultimately, since the court felt that the admission of this other crime evidence was very unfair to VanAnden and could have changed the jury's decision on his guilt, they ordered a new trial. This means that he will have another chance to defend himself against the charges in a new court session, where the jury will hear the case from the beginning without the prejudicial evidence that affected the first trial.

F 2000-213

Post author:Staff
Post published:February 9, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-213, the Appellant appealed his conviction for Carrying a Controlled Dangerous Substance into Jail. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One member of the court dissented. The case involved Heather Davenport, who was accused of bringing illegal substances into a jail. During her trial, the jury found her guilty and suggested a fine and imprisonment. Davenport argued that the jury's decision was unfair because evidence about her husband’s unrelated past crimes was brought into the trial. This evidence was shown to suggest that she knew what she was doing was wrong, which she believed was not relevant to her case. The court agreed with her and noted that the evidence against her did not clearly show that she knew she was breaking the law when she brought the items to the jail. The use of information about her husband’s actions was too unfair and prejudiced her chance for a fair trial. Therefore, the court decided that the conviction should not stand, stating that the evidence presented could have caused a significant mistake in the trial's outcome. The final opinion indicated that the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case was sent back with instructions to dismiss the charges against Davenport.