Self-Defense

F-2011-366

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2011-366, Tony Ray Gipson appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Tony Gipson was found guilty of murdering Victor Berryhill by stabbing him multiple times during an argument at a housing complex. The argument arose after tensions escalated between Gipson's brother and Berryhill. Earlier in the night, Gipson had an altercation with his girlfriend, after which he left. When he returned, he saw his brother involved in an argument with Berryhill, which prompted him to stab Berryhill before kicking him. During the trial, Gipson tried to argue that he was acting in defense of his brother, claiming that he was provoked. He raised several issues on appeal, including a challenge to the state’s jurisdiction based on his Indian heritage and the property being classified as Indian country. The court found that the property did not meet the criteria to be considered Indian country under federal law, concluding that the state had jurisdiction to prosecute Gipson. Gipson also argued that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by his co-defendant, but the court determined that these statements were not reliable or relevant. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding jury instructions on self-defense or the admission of evidence regarding a prior domestic dispute involving Gipson, even though this evidence may have harmed his chances during sentencing. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but decided that Gipson's harsh sentence was likely influenced by the improper admission of evidence relating to his character, which led to the decision to vacate the sentence and order resentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2011-366

F-2009-399

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-399, Jeffery Robert Johnson appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse Johnson's conviction and order a new trial. One judge dissented. Johnson was convicted of stabbing his roommate, Maurice Sartor, after a dispute over money. Johnson claimed he was acting to defend his girlfriend, Malinda Brookey, who was being threatened by Sartor. During the trial, there was a disagreement over how the events happened, especially regarding whether Sartor was the aggressor. The key issue in Johnson's appeal was about a mistake in the jury instructions. The trial court gave the jury a modified instruction about the defense of property that led to confusion. This instruction suggested that Sartor had the right to use force to get his property back, which Johnson argued was not true since he believed he was defending his girlfriend from Sartor's aggression. Johnson's lawyer objected to the instruction at the time of the trial, which meant they could raise this issue in the appeal. The higher court found that this error in the jury instructions was significant enough that it likely affected the fairness of the trial. Because of this, they reversed Johnson's conviction and ordered a new trial while not addressing Johnson's other claims or his request for a new trial based on new evidence. This decision means Johnson will get another chance to present his case in front of a new jury, with the hope that the instructions will be clearer and fairer this time. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority's decision, believing the original instructions were appropriate and did not compromise Johnson's defense.

Continue ReadingF-2009-399

F-2010-223

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2010-223, Travis Ray Tiger appealed his conviction for two counts of Assault and Battery With a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions and sentences but vacated the restitution order, ordering the trial court to determine a proper amount of restitution. One judge dissented. Travis Ray Tiger was found guilty in a non-jury trial for attacking two victims with a utility knife, inflicting serious injuries. The trial judge sentenced him to 32 years in prison for each count, with additional fees and a large restitution amount. Tiger argued that he acted in self-defense, but the court found that he was the aggressor and had provoked the fight. The evidence presented showed he used deadly force against unarmed victims, which did not justify his actions. Regarding his sentences, Tiger claimed they were too harsh. However, the court ruled that the sentences were within the law's limits and appropriate for the crimes committed. Tiger also challenged the restitution amount, asserting that the trial court did not follow proper procedures. While some evidence of the victims' medical expenses was presented, the court noted that there were gaps in the financial details regarding compensation received from other sources. Therefore, the court vacated the restitution order for a new determination of the amount owed to the victims. In summary, while Travis Ray Tiger's assault conviction was upheld, the court found issues with the restitution process that needed to be resolved, leading to the order for a new hearing on the restitution amount.

Continue ReadingF-2010-223

F-2006-408

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2006-408, Johnny Lee Whitworth appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Whitworth was found guilty of killing someone, but the jury believed he was too drunk to intend to kill, so they convicted him of the lesser charge of manslaughter instead of murder. The jury gave him a sentence of 100 years in prison. Whitworth raised several arguments in his appeal: 1. He argued that the jury instructions didn't mention self-defense as a possible defense to manslaughter. 2. He claimed the evidence was not enough to prove he did not act in self-defense. 3. He complained that the jury was not informed about the 85% Rule, which means a person must serve only a portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. 4. He thought his sentence was too harsh. The court found that the jury instructions were overall fair and included necessary information about his defenses. They also concluded that there was enough evidence for the jury to decide against his claim of self-defense. However, the court noted an error regarding the jury not being informed about the 85% Rule when they asked about the actual time Whitworth would serve. This was an important mistake because it might have led the jury to give a longer sentence than they would have if they had understood how the 85% Rule worked. Given that this error occurred and that Whitworth did not have a criminal record, the court decided to reduce his sentence from 100 years to 50 years. In summary, while the court upheld the conviction, they felt it was fair to change Whitworth's sentence to lesser punishment due to the lack of information given to the jury about his potential time in prison.

Continue ReadingF-2006-408

M-2006-555

  • Post author:
  • Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M-2006-555, the appellant appealed his conviction for recklessly conducting himself with a firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when the appellant was charged with a crime called Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. However, after a jury trial, he was found guilty of a lesser crime, which was Reckless Conduct With a Firearm. The punishment for this was six months in jail and a fine of $500. The appellant raised several arguments for why he believed the jury should have decided differently. First, he claimed that he was not properly told about his right to defend himself when he was faced with danger. Second, he argued that he could not access evidence that would show that a witness was not telling the truth. Third, he felt that the jury's decision was based on guesses rather than solid proof. Lastly, he believed he did not have good help from his lawyer during the trial. The court found that the instructions given to the jury were not clear about the appellant's right to self-defense. The jury had even sent a note to the trial court saying they did not feel they understood this important piece of information. The law says that a person must have the chance to explain their side of the story, especially when it comes to self-defense, and in this case, the jury did not get the right instructions about that. Since this was a big mistake that could have affected the jury’s decision, the court decided to reverse the original judgment. It means the appellant will have another chance to prove himself in a new trial. The court did not explore all the details of the self-defense claim but decided that the jury needed the proper guidance on this important matter. The case is now remanded back to the District Court for a new trial where the jury can hear the complete story, including the self-defense argument. This verdict was supported by the judges, but one judge had a different opinion about the case.

Continue ReadingM-2006-555

F 2005-362

  • Post author:
  • 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.

Continue ReadingF 2005-362

F-2004-682

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-682, Felix Finley, IV appealed his conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but reversed and remanded the case for resentencing. One member of the court dissented. Finley had been tried by a jury and found guilty of Manslaughter after he stabbed a man during a fight. He argued that he acted in self-defense because the other man was bigger, older, and hitting him. He raised several issues in his appeal, asking why the jury instructions on self-defense were not clear enough and arguing that evidence presented against him was unfair. The court reviewed the case closely. They found the jury's instruction about self-defense was correct and that the evidence indeed indicated that Finley was not acting in self-defense when he stabbed the man. They also felt that despite some irrelevant evidence being presented during the trial, it did not change the outcome of the jury's decision regarding his guilt. However, the court agreed that Finley’s sentence of 70 years was too long without proper guidance to the jury about parole eligibility, which might have affected how they viewed the seriousness of the sentence they were giving. Therefore, while his conviction was upheld, the court mandated a new sentencing hearing to correct these issues. This case highlights the importance of clear rules in court and how the way information is presented to a jury can influence their decisions on guilt and punishment.

Continue ReadingF-2004-682

F-2004-430

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-430, the appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. William Antwyoe Watson was accused of killing Steven Roberson, but Watson argued he acted in self-defense. The jury had found him guilty of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced him to four years in prison. Watson believed he was defending himself when Roberson attacked him in his home. The appeals court looked carefully at the evidence and found that Watson had been attacked earlier that evening. Roberson had entered Watson's apartment unlawfully and threatened him. The court decided that the state did not prove Watson was not acting in self-defense when he used a knife to protect himself. Therefore, they believed he should be found not guilty. Because of this, the court reversed Watson's conviction and said the case should be dismissed. The issues raised by Watson regarding the trial were no longer needed to be discussed, as the main decision was significant enough. In summary, the court concluded that Watson's actions were justifiable based on the circumstances he faced, and they reversed his conviction for manslaughter.

Continue ReadingF-2004-430

F-2004-1112

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2004-1112, Stanley Trammell appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Shooting with Intent to Kill. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Trammell was found guilty of murdering someone and also for shooting with the intent to kill. He received a life sentence for the murder and a four-year sentence for the shooting, which would be served one after the other. Trammell claimed that during his trial, he was not allowed to tell the jury that he acted in self-defense, which he believed was unfair. He also said that the court didn’t let him share information about the victim's character, which he thought was important for his case. The court looked closely at the trial records and decided that Trammell should have been allowed to explain that he was defending himself during the incident. Because of this mistake, the court concluded that Trammell was entitled to a new trial where he could present his defense properly.

Continue ReadingF-2004-1112

F-2003-1136

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2003-1136, Ernest Lynn appealed his conviction for Possession of Firearms After Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the matter for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Lynn had been tried in a bench trial, where he was not found guilty of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm but was convicted on another charge. He received a one-year prison sentence. Lynn argued that the trial court was wrong to convict him based on facts not presented in the original charges and that self-defense was not properly considered. He also contended that the gun found in a warrantless search should not have been used against him. The court looked at the record and saw that there was no big mistake in how the charge was presented, as Lynn admitted to having the gun. They did not agree with Lynn's claim that his mother's consent to the search was not voluntary, stating that he had no right to challenge the search. Therefore, they found no fault in how the trial court handled the case. Lynn further argued that he should be able to use self-defense as a reason for possessing the firearm. He wanted the court to allow a justification defense where a person can temporarily take a gun from an attacker to protect themselves. The court noted that other laws allow people to defend themselves, and it seemed unfair that a convicted felon could not defend their life. In the end, while the court could not change the outcome of the bench trial immediately, they remanded the case back to the district court to look at whether Lynn's self-defense claim could be valid in this situation. Thus, more hearings would be needed to determine the facts and make a final decision.

Continue ReadingF-2003-1136

F 2000-321

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-321, Lourinda (Givens) Leggett appealed her conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Lourinda (Givens) Leggett was found guilty of First Degree Manslaughter by a jury. She was given a 28-year prison sentence, with 15 years suspended. Afterward, she filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. On appeal, she raised two main errors. First, she argued that her lawyer should have presented evidence about battered woman syndrome, which could have helped her defense. Second, she claimed that the jury received confusing instructions regarding different defenses, which affected the trial's fairness. The court looked carefully at the case, including records and arguments from both sides. They agreed with Lourinda that her lawyer’s decision not to call an expert on battered woman syndrome was not a good choice and had negatively affected her defense. They believed that this choice made it hard to trust the jury's decision. Therefore, they reversed the trial court's decision and ordered a new trial. Since the court found merit in the first point raised by Lourinda, they didn't need to address the second error she mentioned. The court’s decision meant that Lourinda would get another chance in court to present her case.

Continue ReadingF 2000-321

F 2001-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. FT 2001-668, Richard James Cordon appealed his conviction for Second Degree Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Richard Cordon was found guilty of Second Degree Murder after a trial. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Cordon believed he did not get a fair trial because the court refused to give certain jury instructions. These instructions were about statements he made that could show he was innocent, as well as instructions on different types of manslaughter, voluntary intoxication, and self-defense using non-deadly force. After looking carefully at all the evidence and arguments, the court agreed that Cordon’s conviction should be reversed. They felt the trial court made a mistake by not allowing the jury to consider his exculpatory statement, which means a statement that could help prove he was not guilty. The court believed that if the jury had heard this statement, they might have decided Cordon was innocent. The court did not agree with all of Cordon's claims, particularly those about the other types of defenses and instructions he wanted, but they found that the lack of an instruction on his exculpatory statement influenced the trial's fairness. Therefore, the case was sent back for a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-668

F-2001-558

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-558, Medlin appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree by Heat of Passion. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her judgment and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case began when a jury found Medlin guilty of Manslaughter for the shooting death of her husband, Jay Medlin. The jury sentenced her to four years in prison. Medlin argued that the trial court made a mistake by allowing instructions on a lesser charge of Manslaughter since she believed her actions were in self-defense due to previous abuse from her husband. Throughout their marriage, Medlin testified about the many times she and her children had been harmed by Jay. On the night of the shooting, after Jay verbally threatened the family and struck Medlin, she took a gun and shot him multiple times while he was asleep, believing she was defending herself and her children from further harm. At the appeal, the court determined that the evidence did not support a jury instruction on Manslaughter because Medlin had intended to kill her husband. The trial court's instructions to the jury were incorrect because they could only find that she had meant to cause death. Since the evidence only pointed to a conviction for murder, the court concluded that the previous conviction must be dismissed under the law. Thus, the court reversed the conviction and ordered the lower court to dismiss the case entirely, which also meant Medlin could not be tried for First Degree Murder again after the jury had found her not guilty of that charge. The dissenting opinion argued that the judge gave the jury a fair chance to decide based on the evidence presented and that the jury's actions were reasonable based on what they had seen and heard during the trial. In conclusion, the court's ruling in this case emphasized that if there is no substantial evidence showing that a lesser charge could apply, then that instruction should not be presented to the jury.

Continue ReadingF-2001-558

F 2000-1157

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2000-1157, the appellant appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case was about a man named Robert G. Kirkpatrick, who was found guilty by a jury. He was working as a security guard when the incident happened. The jury decided he was guilty, but he thought he didn’t do anything wrong. He believed that he was just trying to keep the peace at a dance event, and he said he was acting in self-defense. Kirkpatrick asked the court to review two main points. First, he said that the judge should have explained what a dangerous weapon is and should have told the jury about a less serious crime they could consider. Second, he argued that the judge did not allow the jury to hear about self-defense. After looking carefully at the case, the court agreed that the second point was important. They believed that if the jury had been given the correct information about self-defense, they might not have found Kirkpatrick guilty. The judges explained that Kirkpatrick had the right to use reasonable force to do his job as a security guard, which included keeping people safe and protecting property. The law says that anyone, including security guards, can help maintain law and order. Because of this, the court decided that Kirkpatrick should not have been found guilty. They reversed the decision of the lower court and said the case should be dismissed. However, one judge disagreed with the dismissal. This judge thought that there was enough evidence to suggest that Kirkpatrick might have been acting in self-defense. They believed that the case should go back to court for a new trial where the jury could hear about self-defense properly. So, the main outcome was that Kirkpatrick's conviction was reversed. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to dismiss the charges. The decision showed that proper instructions and understanding of the law are very important in a trial.

Continue ReadingF 2000-1157