Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Harris v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2004-02-05 · cited 5×
The case involved Jimmy Dean Harris, who was charged with first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after he entered his estranged wife's workplace, fatally shot her employer Merle Taylor, and injured his wife Pamela during a confrontation stemming from their ongoing domestic disputes. A jury convicted Harris on all counts, found the aggravating circumstance that he knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person, and recommended a death sentence for the murder along with life imprisonment and ten years for the other charges, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed numerous claims of error, including issues related to evidence, jury instructions, sentencing procedures, and constitutional challenges such as mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia, ultimately addressing the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the death sentence. The court's core reasoning centered on the trial record showing premeditated actions supported by witness testimony and the rejection of procedural and substantive errors as lacking merit under Oklahoma law.
criminal law
Salazar v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2004-01-29 · cited 8×
This case concerns post-conviction proceedings in which a jury determined that the petitioner was not mentally retarded after the Court had previously granted relief and remanded for such a hearing. The petitioner filed notices of intent to seek review and briefs, creating confusion due to differing procedures outlined in prior decisions such as Lambert and Martinez, and sought clarification on appellate guidelines. The court decided that no separate appeal exists from the remanded mental retardation determination, as it remains part of the original pending post-conviction case, and established uniform procedures including a 30-day deadline for the district court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law, 30- and 45-day periods for transcripts and records, and a 20-day window for parties to file supplemental briefs of up to 20 pages. It granted the petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a conforming brief and dismissed a duplicate appeal number. The core reasoning was the need for consistent application of remand procedures across similar cases to resolve inconsistencies in earlier precedents.
criminal lawprocedure
Fenimore v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2003-09-30 · cited 11×
In Fenimore v. State, the appellant was convicted after a bench trial of driving under the influence and driving while privilege revoked based on his operation of a vehicle on a privately owned road in a trailer park. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed both convictions and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The court held that the State's evidence failed to establish the offenses occurred on a highway, turnpike, or public parking lot as required by the relevant statutes, 47 O.S. 2001, §§ 11-902 and 6-303. It applied rules of strict statutory construction to criminal laws, concluding that the legislature had not extended the prohibitions to private property and that the trial court should have granted the motion to quash.
criminal lawprocedure
Howrey v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002-05-07 · cited 8×
The case concerned Michael J. Howrey's petition to expunge law enforcement arrest records from 1993 under 22 O.S. §§ 18 and 19, specifically regarding a charge of 'Soliciting a Minor for Sex' that was never filed by the district attorney even though other charges were filed and resolved through a deferred sentence. The district court denied the request, finding Howrey ineligible for expungement. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the denial and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the statutory provisions allow a petition for expungement when no charges are filed on a specific arrest accusation, and that the district court has authority to address inaccuracies in the records. The court reasoned that the Legislature intended to permit relief for unfiled charges separate from any filed charges arising from the same arrest.
criminal lawprocedure
Patterson v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002-04-12 · cited 21×
The case involved Oscar Patterson III's conviction in Tulsa County District Court for the first-degree malice aforethought murder of his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter, Tiffiany Beverly, based primarily on testimony from a witness regarding an alleged confession; the jury also found two aggravating circumstances and recommended the death penalty. After the trial court imposed the death sentence, Patterson appealed and raised issues including newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel, leading the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to remand for an evidentiary hearing. Following that hearing and supplemental briefing, the appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The decision rested on review of the full record, the evidentiary hearing findings, and the multiple propositions of error raised by the appellant.
criminal law
Norton v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 2002-02-28 · cited 14×
The case involved Louis Norton, convicted by a jury of knowingly concealing stolen property after tools taken in a burglary were found in his possession; he appealed claiming he was denied counsel at his preliminary hearing. The court found the record insufficient to establish that Norton made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. It held that denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing is not reversible per se under state or federal law but is instead subject to harmless-error review, overruling prior precedent requiring automatic reversal, and remanded for a hearing to determine whether the error was harmless in this case.
criminal lawprocedure