Verdict Consistency Archives

F-2016-997

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 2, 2017
Post category:F

In the case of Jimmie Lee Lovell, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his convictions for First Degree Manslaughter and Driving Under the Influence. Lovell challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress blood test results, arguing he was not given an opportunity for independent testing as required by statute. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion, since Lovell did not request a sample for independent testing during the proper timeframe. Additionally, Lovell argued that the jury’s verdicts—guilty of First Degree Manslaughter and not guilty of Negligent Homicide—were inconsistent. The appeals court found that no objection had been raised regarding the verdict at trial, and therefore reviewed for plain error, concluding there was no actual error affecting his rights, as the jury’s intent was clear. The court noted a variance between the jury’s recommended punishment in Count II (Ten days and a $1,000 fine) and the subsequent sentence (one year in jail). The case was remanded for correction of this discrepancy. Overall, the court affirmed the judgment and sentence in Count I, affirmed the judgment in Count II, and ordered the trial court to correct the Judgment and Sentence in Count II in accordance with the jury's recommendation.

F-2015-1007

Post author:Staff
Post published:June 8, 2017
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2015-1007, Johnny Lee Ingram appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. The case began when Ingram was tried for two crimes: one for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon and the other for Possession of a Firearm after prior convictions. The jury found him guilty of the first charge and not guilty of the second. He was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison based on the jury's recommendation. Ingram raised several points during his appeal. He claimed that the trial court made mistakes, such as not properly answering the jury's questions about the law, which led to confusion. The court agreed that the trial court's responses to the jury were not clear and this could have impacted the jury's decision. During the jury's deliberation, they asked about the meaning of certain instructions related to the case. The trial judge referred them to another instruction without clearly addressing their concerns. This left the jury confused about what constituted criminal intent and whether Ingram could be guilty based on his presence at the scene but not guilty of the other charge. The court emphasized that when jurors express confusion, it is crucial for judges to clearly resolve that confusion. Since the jury found Ingram guilty despite being confused, and considering that the instructions did not help clarify the legal standards, the appellate court concluded that Ingram was not given a fair trial. Thus, they overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial to ensure that the jury could properly consider the evidence laid out, without the confusion created by the previous instructions.