Trial Court Error Archives - Page 3 of 3

F-2001-444

Post author:Staff
Post published:September 30, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-444, Eric Anthony Rivera appealed his conviction for Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the Kidnapping conviction and instructed to dismiss it, while affirming the conviction for Domestic Abuse. One judge dissented. Eric was tried by a jury and found guilty of two serious charges: Kidnapping and Domestic Abuse. The jury gave him a ten-year prison sentence for Kidnapping and a one-year jail sentence for Domestic Abuse, which will be served at the same time. After reviewing the evidence and arguments from both sides, the appeals court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support that Eric truly intended to kidnap the victim secretly. Because of this, the court said that the conviction for Kidnapping should be reversed, meaning they didn't agree with that part of the trial's decision. They felt Eric didn’t get a fair chance regarding that charge because the evidence didn’t meet the legal requirements. However, they found that the case against him for Domestic Abuse still stood strong and was supported by sufficient evidence, so they kept that conviction in place. The judges on the appeal discussed their different opinions about the case, with one agreeing with the majority, while others felt that the Kidnapping conviction should have stayed based on the evidence presented. In the end, the court's decision meant Eric would no longer be punished for Kidnapping but would still serve his sentence for Domestic Abuse.

F-2001-916

Post author:Staff
Post published:August 15, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-916, Gilda Marie Schoonover appealed her conviction for Committing or Permitting Child-Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gilda and her husband were charged with the murder of their adopted child, Benjamin, who was just over two years old. The trial took place with a jury, and both Gilda and her husband were found guilty. They were sentenced to life in prison based on the jury's recommendation. During the trial, there were several problems that Gilda highlighted as reasons for her appeal. First, she argued it was wrong for the jury to consider different ways to blame her. They were told that it was possible she either directly hurt the child or allowed her husband to hurt him. Gilda felt that allowing these different ideas confused the jury. She also pointed out that the court did not let the defense see all the evidence it needed, like a written statement from another person who might have helped their case. Furthermore, Gilda was unhappy about how the court allowed some information about past contacts with child services to be used against her. The jury couldn’t be sure which theory they believed—the one where Gilda hurt the child or the one where she let her husband hurt him. The court agreed that the evidence provided did not clearly show that she personally allowed the abuse or knew it was going to happen. Because of these issues, the court decided that Gilda deserved a new trial to ensure she had a fair chance to defend herself. In summary, the court found errors in the trial process, particularly in how the jury was instructed and the evidence presented. Gilda's conviction was overturned, and she was given another chance to have her case heard.

F 2001-171

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 31, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-171, Emily Dowdy appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Emily Dowdy was found guilty of causing a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. Her trial took place in January 2001, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing ten different points about why her trial was unfair. First, she claimed that she should not have been tried again because of double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the appellate court said that this was not the case here because the state did not purposefully try to get a mistrial. Second, Dowdy wanted to present a defense that she was involuntarily intoxicated, meaning she did not intend to be drunk, but the court ruled that she could not do this, which the appellate court found was a mistake. This mistake was very important and led to the decision to give her a new trial. The appellate court emphasized that everyone has the right to defend themselves and present their story in court, which Dowdy was not allowed to do. The other points raised by Dowdy, such as claims of unfair trial processes, bias from the judge, and other trial errors, were not addressed because the court believed that the preclusion of her intoxication defense was enough to warrant a new trial. In the end, the appellate court said Dowdy should have another opportunity to present her case to a jury where she could defend herself fully. The judge's decision not to allow her intoxication defense to be presented was seen as very serious and unfair, leading the court to reverse the earlier judgment and order a new trial.

F-2001-609

Post author:Staff
Post published:May 14, 2002
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2001-609, John Henry Harris appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction with instructions to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. John Henry Harris was found guilty in a trial without a jury. The court sentenced him to fifteen years in prison and a fine of $25,000. However, Harris appealed this decision, arguing that the police had violated his rights during the arrest. The main issue was whether the police were allowed to enter Harris's home without a warrant. The court reviewed the case law related to the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, police need a warrant to enter a person's home, unless there are special circumstances. One of these situations is called hot pursuit, which means the police can follow someone closely if they believe a crime has been committed and the person might escape. In this case, the court found that Harris's arrest did not require a warrant since the police were trying to apprehend him for minor traffic violations and a misdemeanor charge. They ruled that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify entering the home without a warrant. The court also emphasized that the police needed to show that waiting for a warrant would have resulted in the loss of evidence, which they did not prove. As a result, the court stated that the trial court had made a mistake by not agreeing to Harris's request to dismiss the evidence obtained during the illegal entry into his home. Since the evidence was critical for his conviction, the court had no choice but to reverse Harris's guilty verdict and instructed the trial court to dismiss the charges against him. The dissenting opinion believed that the police acted properly. The dissenting judge pointed out that Harris committed multiple traffic violations and tried to escape from the police by running into a house where he did not live. When the police arrived, the homeowners informed them that Harris should be chased. The dissenting judge felt that the police were justified in entering the home to make the arrest and to prevent potential harm to the homeowners. In summary, the court’s decision to reverse Harris’s conviction was based on the belief that his rights were violated through an illegal entry into his home without a warrant.

F-2000-821

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 1, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2000-821, Mitchell Lawrence Rose appealed his conviction for Solicitation of First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented.

F-2000-861

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 27, 2001
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-00-861, Anthony Tyrone Raymond appealed his conviction for trafficking illegal drugs. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the conviction but modified the fine imposed. One judge dissented. Raymond was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to ten years in prison and a fine of $25,000. He raised several errors on appeal, including that the trial court wrongly excluded a witness's testimony, improperly instructed the jury about evidence, and made mistakes regarding the imposed fine and the legality of the search that found drugs on him. The court agreed that it was wrong to deny the defense witness the chance to testify, but believed this did not affect the outcome of the trial. About the jury instructions, the court found that there was no error because the instructions followed the defense's request. They also said the fine was incorrectly high based on the law, so they changed it to $10,000. Regarding the search that uncovered drugs, the court ruled that the officers acted properly since they had reasonable suspicion about Raymond’s involvement in crime. They also noted that Raymond had the right to contest the evidence against him, but there was no issue about him not being able to present his case during the hearing about this. Finally, they stated that the amount of drugs relevant to the conviction was clearly outlined. The final decision was to maintain the conviction but adjust the fine to reflect the correct amount.