Theory of Defense Archives

M-2006-555

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 12, 2007
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 In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence and ordered a new trial.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.

F 2003-1036

Post author:Staff
Post published:March 8, 2004
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2003-1036, Mark Anthony Troutt appealed his conviction for Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substance (Cocaine). In a published decision, the court decided to reverse his conviction and remand the case for a new trial. One judge dissented. Mark Anthony Troutt was tried and found guilty of distributing cocaine, which is a serious crime. The trial took place in the Oklahoma County District Court. During the trial, Troutt's lawyers argued that he did not receive a fair trial because the judge did not let the jury hear about his defense, which was based on entrapment. Entrapment means that someone was tricked into committing a crime they wouldn’t have done otherwise. The jury decided that Troutt was guilty and gave him a punishment of fifteen years in prison. Troutt did not agree with the decision and decided to appeal, which means he wanted a higher court to review the case. In the appeal, Troutt's lawyers pointed out three main problems with the trial. First, they said the trial judge should have allowed the jury to hear about his defense of entrapment. They believed this was important because the jury needed to decide for themselves if Troutt had been tricked into committing the crime. Second, they claimed that some of the evidence presented during the trial was not relevant and could have unfairly influenced the jury. Third, they argued that together, all these issues made it impossible for Troutt to get a fair trial. After reviewing everything, the court agreed that Troutt had been denied a fair trial. They ruled that the judge's refusal to let the jury consider his entrapment defense was a significant mistake. Because of this, the court decided to reverse Troutt's conviction and ordered a new trial where the jury could properly consider all the evidence, including his defense. The case highlights the importance of a fair legal process and the right for a defendant to have a jury hear their side of the story.

F-2001-1372

Post author:Staff
Post published:January 10, 2003
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-1372, #Welch appealed his conviction for #First Degree Burglary and Peeping Tom. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided #to affirm the conviction but vacate the fine imposed. #No one dissented. Tony Wayne Welch was found guilty of breaking and entering a building and also for being a Peeping Tom. The court sentenced him to thirty years in prison for burglary and one year in jail for the Peeping Tom charge, which would be served at the same time. Welch challenged several things about his trial. First, he said the jury should have been told they could consider a lesser charge of breaking and entering, but the court said that was not appropriate. Then, he argued that the prosecution misled the jury, but the court disagreed, stating that the prosecution's remarks did not unfairly influence the jury. Welch also claimed his lawyer did not represent him well, but the court found no evidence that this hurt his case. The court did determine, however, that there was a mistake in how the punishment for Peeping Tom was explained to the jury, which was considered a serious error. Since Welch had already served his jail time since the trial, there wasn’t much that could be done about it. The court decided to take away the $500 fine from the Peeping Tom charge. Lastly, the court found that it was not required to inform the jury about how much time Welch would have to serve before he could be released on parole. They decided that his overall sentence was fair, and nothing about the trial significantly harmed his chances for a fair outcome. In the end, the court upheld the verdict of the jury but removed the fine, stating that despite some issues during the trial, they did not impact the fairness of his conviction.

F-2001-655

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 6, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-655, Robert Leroy Martin appealed his conviction for First Degree Rape, Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, and First Degree Burglary. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but modify the sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively. One judge dissented. Robert Leroy Martin was found guilty of serious crimes by a jury. The judge gave him life imprisonment for rape, fifty years for robbery, and twenty years for burglary, and said he had to serve these sentences one after the other. Martin then appealed this decision. During the appeal, the court looked closely at the case and the arguments made. They considered several points raised by Martin. The first point was about the instructions the jury received during the trial about burglary. The court found this was not a mistake that affected the trial unfairly because Martin’s explanation was different from that of another case. The second point Martin made was about the jurors not getting complete information on the punishments they could choose for each crime. However, the court said Martin did not object during the trial, so he couldn’t claim this as an error now. The third and final point discussed was whether the sentences were too harsh. The court agreed that the long sentences felt excessive for the circumstances of the case. In the end, the court said Martin would still be found guilty but changed the way the sentences would be served from one after the other to at the same time. One judge disagreed with changing the sentences, believing the original decision by the trial judge should stand.