Second Degree

F-2021-554

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-554, Robert Willie Wilson, Jr. appealed his conviction for accessory to burglary in the second degree and carrying weapons. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count 1 (accessory to burglary) with instructions to dismiss the charge, while affirming Count 2 (carrying weapons). One member of the court dissented. The case revolved around Wilson's alleged involvement in a burglary at a laundromat. The jury found him guilty of being an accessory rather than guilty of the burglary itself. They sentenced him to twenty years for the accessory charge and thirty days for carrying a weapon, to be served at the same time as his other sentence. Wilson challenged his conviction, arguing that the evidence was not enough to prove he was an accessory to the burglary. He claimed that the State failed to show he actively concealed or helped another person, named Justin White, who committed the burglary. The law requires that to be an accessory, someone must help the offender escape arrest or punishment after the crime. During the trial, the evidence suggested that while Wilson was present in the vehicle during the time of the burglary, there was no proof that he helped White in any way after the crime. The court pointed out that Wilson's mere presence did not make him guilty. It highlighted that the State only showed he knew about the burglary, which was not enough to convict him as an accessory. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not support a conviction for accessory to burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, they reversed Wilson's conviction for that charge, but they did maintain the conviction for carrying a weapon. The remaining claims in Wilson's appeal were no longer necessary to consider due to this decision.

Continue ReadingF-2021-554

F-2021-512

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-512, Trevor Leif Toppah appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree and Obstructing an Officer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his judgment and sentence, except for modifying the fee assessed for his indigent defense. One judge dissented. Toppah was found guilty of second degree burglary and obstructing an officer by a district court. The burglary charge was based on the fact that he broke into a parked automobile with the intent to commit theft. During his trial, the judge considered if there was enough evidence to support the burglary conviction, focusing on whether Toppah used force to enter the vehicle and if he had the intention of stealing anything. The court reviewed the evidence and determined that it was enough for a reasonable person to believe Toppah was guilty of burglary. They noted that breaking into a car, even by just opening the door, is considered a form of breaking necessary for a burglary charge. The court also mentioned that proving intent could be done through either direct or indirect evidence, which they found sufficient in Toppah's case. Toppah raised some issues regarding money charged for his defense costs. He argued that the court charged him too much and that it should be less, as stated in the law. Although his lawyer didn’t object to this during the trial, the court noticed that they had made a mistake. They admitted that the fee should have been $250 instead of the $500 that was charged. Lastly, Toppah argued that a series of errors during his trial caused him not to receive a fair trial. However, the court found that the only error that needed correcting was the higher fee, and that this error did not affect the overall fairness of his trial. In summary, the court upheld Toppah's conviction for burglary but corrected the amount he had to pay for the public defense.

Continue ReadingF-2021-512

F-2021-123

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2021-123, Airick William Fuller appealed his conviction for kidnapping and first-degree robbery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction. One judge dissented. Fuller was found guilty by a jury in Custer County for two counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery, having prior felony convictions. The jury gave him sentences of ten years for each kidnapping count and thirty years for the robbery, all to be served concurrently, meaning he would serve them at the same time. Fuller argued that the evidence used in the trial was not enough to prove he committed first-degree robbery and that the trial court did not inform the jury about a lesser crime, second-degree robbery. The court carefully reviewed the entire case, including the evidence and arguments from both sides. Regarding the first argument, the court stated that there was enough evidence to show that Fuller threatened a victim, Jason White, with serious harm during the robbery. Even though White did not actually see a gun, the court noted that he had reason to fear for his safety because of what had happened earlier. The court concluded that the jury could justifiably find Fuller guilty based on this evidence. For the second argument, the court explained that since Fuller did not ask for the jury to consider the lesser charge of second-degree robbery, it was difficult for him to claim a mistake was made. The court found that no errors that would have changed the outcome of the trial were made. The court confirmed the original sentences but also instructed the District Court to make sure that the official record reflected that the sentences were to be served concurrently if that had not already been done. Overall, the court affirmed the conviction and rejected Fuller’s arguments.

Continue ReadingF-2021-123

F-2017-825

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-825, Ryan Paul Farr appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences. There was one dissenting opinion. The case began when Farr was found guilty by a jury in Carter County. He faced two counts: one for burglary after having previous convictions, and another for having a firearm despite also having previous convictions. The jury decided that he should serve 25 years for the burglary and 15 years for the firearm possession, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Farr raised many complaints in his appeal, mentioning problems he believed occurred during the trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes when it allowed the case to be reopened for more witness testimony and that he did not get a fair trial due to evidence of other crimes being presented. He also expressed concern about the prosecutor’s comments, which he thought made it seem like he was guilty before the jury could decide. The court looked closely at each of Farr's points. For the first complaint, the court said that letting the State present more witness testimony was a reasonable choice and didn’t hurt Farr's case. About the evidence of other crimes, the court noted that Farr didn’t object at the time these details were shared, which meant he couldn’t complain later. Farr also had issues with how his prior convictions were brought up during the trial, but the court found no major errors there either. When it came to the prosecutor’s behavior, the court decided that while the prosecutor made some points during arguments, they did not sway the trial's fairness. Farr's claims about not having enough evidence supporting his burglary and firearm possession were rejected since the court believed the evidence presented was sufficient to prove his guilt. Lastly, although Farr thought his sentences were too long, the court reminded him that sentences are usually left to the discretion of the judge unless they are extremely unfair, which in this case they weren’t. Because the court found no errors in the trial process, they confirmed the decision made in the lower court. In conclusion, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence against Farr, stating that all of his arguments were without merit.

Continue ReadingF-2017-825

F-2017-902

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-902, Kaylin Mixon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Depraved Mind Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction and uphold the sentence. One judge dissented. Kaylin Mixon was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 30 years in prison, along with a $100 fine. Mixon argued that his trial was unfair for three reasons. First, he believed that the jury should have been individually asked about their verdict to ensure all members agreed. However, the court found that since no one complained during the trial, there was no clear error. They determined that the jury's agreement was evident enough without needing to poll each member individually. Second, Mixon contended that photos from the autopsy shown at trial were too upsetting and should not have been allowed as evidence, claiming they were not necessary since the cause of death was not disputed. The court ruled that the photos were relevant to the case and helped to explain the details of the crime, so the inclusion of the photos did not unfairly influence the jury. Lastly, Mixon challenged the $100 fine imposed by the judge, arguing that it wasn’t proper since the law didn’t specifically mention a fine for his type of conviction. However, the court referenced past rulings that allowed judges to impose fines in felony cases, concluding that the fine was valid. After reviewing these issues, the court found no substantial errors that would warrant a new trial or change in the sentence. Therefore, they affirmed the original decision and the appeal was denied.

Continue ReadingF-2017-902

F-2016-229

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2016-229, Marcus Stephon Miller appealed his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction for possession of a firearm but vacated and remanded his convictions for second-degree murder for resentencing. One judge dissented from the decision to remand for resentencing. Miller was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of possession of a firearm while under supervision. A jury convicted him of lesser charges of second-degree murder for the first two counts and of possession of a firearm for the third count. Miller received sentences of 25 years for each murder count and 5 years for the firearm count, with the sentences scheduled to run one after the other. Miller argued that errors were made during his trial. He claimed that the trial court did not follow the right procedures for splitting his trial into stages, which affected his right to a fair trial. He pointed out that the jury was not properly instructed and that misconduct happened from the prosecution's side. He also believed his lawyer did not help him enough during the trial and that the judge wrongly refused to give him credit for time served in jail before sentencing. After looking over the case, the court found that while the trial had some mistakes, they didn’t actually hurt Miller's case enough to impact the verdict for the possession charge. However, they agreed that the trial court made a significant mistake in how it handled sentencing for the murder counts, mainly because it allowed the jury to consider his previous convictions when they should not have. The court decided that the sentencing for the second-degree murders had to be thrown out and that Miller would need to be resentenced, but his conviction for possession would stay. In dissent, one judge noted that the errors made during trial did not affect Miller's rights since he received a relatively lenient sentence given the seriousness of the crimes he was convicted for. The judge believed that the mistakes did not warrant a new sentencing for the murder counts because the nature of the charges and the consequences indicated that the overall outcome would not change. In conclusion, while Miller's appeal was partly successful, with the court affirming his conviction on one count and ordering a new sentencing for the other two, the dissenting opinion felt that the original sentencing should stand.

Continue ReadingF-2016-229

F-2014-764

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-764, Hawks appealed her conviction for Murder in the First Degree, Burglary in the First Degree, and two counts of Kidnapping. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand Count I, which was the murder conviction, but affirmed Counts II, III, and IV, which were the burglary and kidnapping convictions. One judge dissented on the reversal of the murder conviction. Hawks was accused of being involved in serious crimes, including murder, along with two other co-defendants. After being found guilty by a jury, Hawks was sentenced to a long prison term, with the murder sentence being life imprisonment. Hawks argued that the evidence against her was weak, claiming she didn’t participate in the crimes or know about them beforehand. She believed the jury wasn't given a fair chance to make their decision because the prosecution made mistakes in explaining the law regarding aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting means that someone helped or supported a crime, even if they weren't the main person committing it. For Hawks to be found guilty, the evidence needed to show she had some knowledge or intent to support the crimes of her co-defendants, which involved planning and executing the murder and kidnappings. However, the court found that there were major issues with how the prosecutors explained the law, which misled the jury. The judges agreed that the jury may not have properly understood the law because the prosecutor repeatedly misstated it, even if the jury was given the correct instructions. As a result, the court agreed to give Hawks a new trial for the murder charge. For the kidnapping and burglary charges, the evidence seemed sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, so those were upheld. In conclusion, while Hawks' murder conviction was reversed for a new trial due to errors in how the law was presented to the jury, her other convictions were confirmed as valid. One judge disagreed with reversing the murder conviction, believing that the verdict was just and the evidence against Hawks clear.

Continue ReadingF-2014-764

F-2014-396

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2014-396, Jenkins appealed his conviction for Burglary in the Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to modify Jenkins' 30-year sentence to 20 years. The decision was reached after the court found some errors occurred during the sentencing stage. Jenkins was convicted of breaking into a house with the intent to steal. He argued that the evidence did not prove he broke into the home. However, the court found that the doors being open and a window being broken were enough to show that he did break in. The court also determined that his behavior, like giving a false name and running away, suggested he intended to steal. Although the court found the conviction valid, they acknowledged that the prosecution made mistakes when discussing Jenkins' past criminal record, which prompted them to lower his sentence. The original sentence of 30 years was too harsh given the errors, leading the court to adjust it to 20 years. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but modified the length of the sentence.

Continue ReadingF-2014-396

F-2013-137

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2013-137, Antonio Catalino Myrie appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm Myrie's conviction but vacated the $10,000 fine imposed. One judge dissented regarding aspects of the sentencing arguments presented at trial. Antonio Myrie was tried and found guilty by a jury. The jury decided that he would spend thirty-five years in prison and pay a fine for the crime. Myrie appealed this decision, claiming several errors during his trial. He argued that the trial court made mistakes by not allowing him to suppress DNA evidence, not giving him more time to prepare his case, and other issues he thought affected his right to a fair trial. The judges reviewed the claims made by Myrie. They explained that the evidence used in his trial, including the DNA, was evaluated carefully. The judges believed that the trial court's decision to admit the DNA evidence was not a mistake. They also felt that Myrie did not show that he would have won his case even if the DNA had been tested differently. Myrie's other claims included that the court made mistakes in admitting hearsay evidence, which means statements made outside of court that shouldn't be used as evidence in court. The judges found that there was no strong reason to believe this would change the outcome of the trial, so they denied this claim as well. One important point was about how the jury was instructed on the consequences of a conviction. Myrie’s lawyers did not object to the jury instructions, and the judges concluded that one instruction wrongly made it sound like the fine was mandatory. They decided to remove the fine based on this mistake. Myrie also argued about misconduct during the trial, specifically that the prosecutor mentioned too many of his previous convictions, which he believed made the jury biased against him. However, the judges thought that while there were errors in how the prosecutor presented this information, it did not affect the fairness of the trial enough to change the outcome. In the end, the judges agreed that Myrie's punishment was justified given his past actions, and they decided to keep the thirty-five-year prison sentence while removing the fine due to a mistake about the jury instruction. One judge disagreed with parts of the decision, particularly about how the prosecutor argued about Myrie's past, stating it should have a different impact on the sentence. Overall, the court upheld the conviction and modified the fine.

Continue ReadingF-2013-137

S-2012-834

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-834, the State of Oklahoma appealed an order that granted a motion to dismiss several charges against Jeffrey Porras. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling. One judge dissented. The case involved charges against Porras, who is a physician. He was accused of committing sexual battery and rape against multiple victims while they were receiving medical treatment. The accusations included five counts of sexual battery and one count of second-degree rape, with the incidents alleged to have occurred in different counties over a period of time from 2005 to 2007. The trial court dismissed some of the counts because it felt that the incidents were not part of a single plan or scheme. The law allows for multiple charges to be tried together if they are connected in a way that shows they are part of the same pattern of criminal behavior. However, the court decided that the alleged crimes in Oklahoma County and Cleveland County were separate and did not meet the criteria for joining them in one trial. In making this decision, the court looked at how the offenses occurred over a span of two years and did not significantly overlap in timing or in the way they were committed. This means that the crimes did not depend on each other and were not part of a continuous plan that would justify being tried together. The appellate court agreed with the trial judge's reasoning, stating that there was no clear error in the decision to dismiss those charges. The ruling reaffirmed that the charges from different counties could be handled separately without causing injustice to anyone. The dissenting judge, however, believed that the charges should not have been dismissed since they had common elements and were related to his actions as a doctor. The dissent argued that since all victims were patients and the incidents happened in similar situations, it was appropriate to consider them as part of a greater plan to commit these crimes. In conclusion, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss certain charges against Porras, maintaining that the evidence did not sufficiently show a connection that warranted a single trial for all the charges.

Continue ReadingS-2012-834

F-2010-307

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-307, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacated the sentence for re-sentencing. One judge dissented, suggesting a modification of the sentence to life imprisonment instead of life without the possibility of parole.

Continue ReadingF-2010-307

F-2009-47

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-47, Kenneth Simmons appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing. One judge dissented. Mark Kenneth Simmons was found guilty of Manslaughter after his trial for Murder in the First Degree. The jury gave him a fifteen-year prison sentence. He appealed, saying the trial court made an error by not informing the jury that he had to serve at least 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The law in Oklahoma states that people convicted of specific crimes, like First Degree Murder or Manslaughter in the First Degree, must serve at least 85% of their sentence before they can be considered for parole. In a previous case, the court decided that jurors should know about these rules when they are deciding on a sentence. During the trial, when the jury asked if they needed to consider the 85% rule, the court told them to continue deliberating without giving any additional information. This was seen as a mistake. The State argued that this mistake did not affect the outcome significantly, but the court disagreed and said it was clear this lack of instruction was a big error. Because of this error, the court couldn’t be confident that the jury fully understood the implications of the sentence they handed down. The court decided that a new sentence should be determined, either by a properly instructed jury or by the District Court if the jury was waived by Simmons. The court affirmed the judgment but vacated the sentence, meaning they believed he should be tried again for sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-47

C-2007-743

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to vacate the sentence from the District Court in Case No. CF-2004-31 and remand it back for further proceedings, specifically to determine the unserved portion of Long's sentence. Additionally, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in CF-2006-90, which was for Burglary in the Second Degree. The court clarified that a prior felony conviction enhanced Long's sentence for the burglary conviction. One member of the court dissented.

Continue ReadingC-2007-743

F-2007-636

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2007-636, Bryan William Long, Jr. appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug with Intent to Distribute (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the sentence imposed by the District Court was vacated, and the case was remanded to determine the total number of days served under the original sentence. In C-2007-743, the judgment and sentence for Burglary in the Second Degree was affirmed, but the District Court was directed to correct the journal entry regarding prior felony convictions. #1 dissented.

Continue ReadingF-2007-636

C-2005-1198

  • Post author:
  • Post category:C

In OCCA case No. C-2005-1198, the Petitioner appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner's appeal. One member dissented. The case involved a man named Brad Daniel Richards who pleaded guilty to two charges: burglary and concealing stolen property. He received a sentence of seven years in prison for the burglary and a five-year suspended sentence for the other charge. After his conviction, he wanted to take back his guilty pleas because he felt that his lawyer did not represent him well during the hearing where he tried to withdraw his plea. Richards argued that his attorney had a conflict of interest. During the hearing to withdraw his plea, the attorney mentioned that there could be an issue with his previous representation but did not argue on Richards' behalf. The court noted that a lawyer should provide good help to their client, especially at this critical stage of the process. The court looked closely at whether Richards' lawyer's conflict of interest affected his case. They pointed out that Richards had not testified, and his lawyer did not really support his claims. Because of this, the court could not make a clear decision about whether Richards should be allowed to withdraw his plea. In the end, the court granted Richards' request to review the original decision and said he deserves a new hearing with a different lawyer who does not have a conflict of interest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment was reversed, and the case was sent back for a new hearing.

Continue ReadingC-2005-1198

F-2004-767

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-767, Reginald Lamond Brazell appealed his conviction for Robbery in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentence to thirty years imprisonment. One member of the court dissented. Brazell was found guilty of committing a robbery, and the jury sentenced him to forty years in prison. He challenged this conviction by arguing that the evidence against him was not strong enough, that he should have been given instructions about a lesser crime (second-degree robbery), and that the jury should have been told about parole eligibility under the eighty-five percent rule. The court reviewed the evidence and decided it was sufficient to support the conviction. They also agreed that the jury did not need to hear about the second-degree robbery since the evidence did not support that claim. However, they found that the jury should have been instructed about the eighty-five percent rule, which relates to how much of the sentence a person must serve before being eligible for parole. As a result, the court affirmed the conviction but shortened Brazell's sentence to thirty years.

Continue ReadingF-2004-767

RE 2005-0473

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2005-0473, the appellant appealed his conviction for burglary in the second degree and knowingly concealing stolen property. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences because the hearing was not held within the required twenty days. The appellant had a dissenting opinion.

Continue ReadingRE 2005-0473

RE-2004-445

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-445, Dewayne Eugene Ring appealed his conviction for attempted burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that Ring should have a chance to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not eligible for a suspended sentence due to his prior convictions. The court found that his previous felony convictions meant that part of his sentence that was suspended was void. Therefore, they ordered that the lower court should give him a chance to withdraw his plea. If he chose not to withdraw it, the court was to make him serve the full sentence. One judge dissented in this opinion.

Continue ReadingRE-2004-445

RE 2003-0857

  • Post author:
  • Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE 2003-0857, #Montgomery appealed his conviction for #Burglary, Second Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence, but modified the length of the revocation to three years. #One judge dissented. Montgomery had initially pled guilty to burglary and was given a chance to stay out of prison under certain rules for four years. However, he broke the rules multiple times. The state asked the court to impose his sentence because he did not keep a job, did not pay the money he owed, and committed new crimes like driving without a license. The judge revoked a large portion of his sentence for these reasons. On appeal, Montgomery argued that the judge had no right to take away three and a half years of his sentence and that the punishment was too harsh. The court found that while the judge made a mistake in calculating the time, the decision to revoke the sentence was not seen as overly harsh, so they changed the revocation from three and a half years to three years instead.

Continue ReadingRE 2003-0857

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-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