Charles A. Johnson

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved Ryan Owen McCarty's convictions for three counts of first-degree murder in Canadian County, Oklahoma, including the killing of an unborn fetus carried by one of the victims. McCarty appealed on multiple grounds, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the fetal murder count and arguing that the fetus was not viable. The court granted relief on that issue, holding that first-degree murder liability for the death of a fetus requires proof of viability, which under Oklahoma statutes begins with a rebuttable presumption at 24 weeks gestation and is measured by the ability to survive outside the womb. Here, the fetus was approximately 15 weeks old, so the evidence could not support the first-degree murder conviction for that count, though the convictions for the other two murders were unaffected.

criminal lawabortion

Kip Antonio Smith was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing a minor child and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. He appealed on grounds that a prior civil deprived-child proceeding, in which a jury answered special interrogatories finding he had not sexually abused the child in a shocking, heinous, or severely harmful manner, should have barred the criminal prosecution under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that collateral estoppel may apply when a civil proceeding precedes a criminal one, but held the doctrine did not bar this case because the specific factual issues litigated were not identical; it therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

Kenneth Earl Dale was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma of unlawful cultivation of marijuana and use of a firearm during a felony, based on evidence obtained after police entered his fenced rural property without a warrant by climbing over a locked gate. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the warrantless entry onto the curtilage of the home violated the Fourth Amendment and the Oklahoma Constitution because there were no exigent circumstances and the officers had time to obtain a warrant. The court reasoned that the illegal entry tainted the subsequent consent to search and any statements made, requiring suppression of the evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Elmer Allen Rea, who was convicted after a non-jury trial of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a $500 fine. On appeal, Rea argued that his sentence was excessive given his history of mental health issues and diminished capacity, and urged the court to adopt a proportionality standard for reviewing sentences instead of the "shock the conscience" standard. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court had considered Rea's mental health history and did not abuse its discretion, and declined to change the existing standard of review for sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Richard Eugene Glossip's 1998 conviction in Oklahoma County for first-degree murder and resulting death sentence, stemming from the 1997 beating death of Barry Van Treese at a motel where Glossip worked as manager. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the testimony of co-defendant Justin Sneed, who admitted committing the murder in exchange for a life-without-parole deal and claimed Glossip had directed him to do it; Glossip consistently denied involvement as the planner. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial after an evidentiary hearing, holding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain and use impeachment materials against Sneed, adequately prepare or present a defense theory, object to prejudicial evidence, and otherwise provide competent advocacy, such that confidence in the reliability of the adversarial process was lost.

criminal lawprocedure

Brandon Jamar Ballard was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County District Court of first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill, and sentenced to life imprisonment plus twenty years to be served consecutively. On appeal he argued insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance related to youthful-offender certification, and ineffective assistance when trial counsel declined the trial court's offer of lesser-included-offense instructions. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that a defendant possesses a statutory personal right to jury consideration of lesser offenses supported by the evidence and that this right cannot be waived by counsel alone without the defendant's affirmative, knowing waiver on the record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Darrin Lynn Pickens's appeal from his Creek County convictions for first-degree murder during a robbery with a dangerous weapon and feloniously carrying a firearm, for which a jury imposed the death penalty after finding three aggravating circumstances. Pickens challenged the admission of his confession as the fruit of an illegal arrest, claiming the supporting affidavit contained intentionally false or recklessly misleading statements about ballistics comparisons between the Creek County projectiles and those from similar Tulsa crimes. The court applied the Franks v. Delaware framework, reviewed the evidentiary hearings on the motion to suppress, and determined that the affidavit supported probable cause even after excising any challenged statements, thereby upholding the trial court's rulings and affirming the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

Kevin Young was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder (malice aforethought), attempted robbery with firearms, and shooting with intent to kill, based on evidence that he and another man entered a restaurant gambling room, announced they were there for the money, and fired guns during a struggle that resulted in one man's death and injuries to others; he received a death sentence plus prison terms. On direct appeal, Young raised claims including that the prosecutor improperly referenced biblical doctrine in closing argument and that a juror engaged in misconduct by consulting a Bible during penalty-phase deliberations. The court distinguished precedent involving actual introduction of extraneous biblical material or direct reliance on scripture to justify punishment, found the evidence of misconduct insufficient to establish reversible prejudice, and rejected the claims as not warranting reversal of the convictions or sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

In Childress v. State, James Charles Childress appealed his jury convictions in Sequoyah County for first-degree murder and larceny of a domestic animal, stemming from an incident where he shot and killed a calf on a farm and then fatally shot the farmer Jason Wilson who confronted him, claiming self-defense based on his physical condition and fear. The jury imposed a death sentence on the murder count after finding it was committed to avoid arrest or prosecution, along with a ten-year term for the larceny. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the trial record, including the defendant's confession, jury instructions on self-defense and lesser offenses, voir dire procedures, and victim impact evidence, noting the need for caution with such evidence and distinguishing prior precedent on record-keeping issues while advising on retrial of the murder count.

criminal law

The case involved Charles F. Taylor's trial and convictions in Pittsburg County for first-degree malice murder and three counts of shooting with intent to kill, stemming from a November 1995 incident in which Taylor shot multiple victims at a residence during a dispute over an unpaid methamphetamine debt. The jury found two aggravating circumstances and recommended the death penalty for the murder count along with life sentences for the remaining counts, which the trial court imposed. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments and sentences, concluding that the evidence supported the convictions and aggravating factors while rejecting claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present certain mitigation testimony or impeach witnesses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rocky Eugene Dodd, who was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County of two counts of first-degree malice aforethought murder for killing his neighbors Kari Sloniker and Shane McInturff following an argument over missing drugs. Dodd received death sentences after the jury found multiple aggravating circumstances, including prior violent felonies, great risk of death to multiple persons, and continuing threat to society. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed issues including the admissibility of testimony from a jailhouse informant, DNA evidence, and other evidentiary matters under standards like Daubert. The court addressed constitutional challenges related to the informant's statements and affirmed the convictions and sentences based on the sufficiency of the evidence and proper application of aggravating factors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned John Camp Bernay's trial and conviction in Oklahoma County District Court for first-degree malice murder after he shot and killed Pamela Wolfchief during a dispute at his home over her daughter, along with related charges of shooting others that resulted in acquittals. The jury found four aggravating circumstances and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims including limitations on defense voir dire regarding death-penalty views, self-defense under state law for unlawful entries, and various evidentiary and procedural issues from both trial stages. The court denied all propositions of error, affirmed the judgment and sentence of death, and later denied rehearing.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

Jerry Mooney was convicted by a jury in Washita County District Court of first-degree malice aforethought murder for beating 93-year-old Richard Turley during a 1993 robbery, after which Turley died from complications; the jury found three aggravating circumstances and imposed a death sentence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder conviction but modified the sentence to life without parole. The court held that the combination of two serious errors in the penalty phase rendered the death sentence unreliable. The opinion addresses related issues including competency proceedings and evidentiary matters from the trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Stephen Van White was charged and tried for first-degree murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and attempted rape after a 1982 incident in which he allegedly stabbed two women during a robbery at an Okmulgee thrift shop, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Following reversal of his initial murder conviction on direct appeal, he was retried in 1989, convicted on all counts, and sentenced to death after the jury found four aggravating circumstances. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims including alleged Batson violations in jury selection, the defendant's competency and right to be present at all stages, the proper role and disclosure of psychiatric expert evidence, and the admissibility of certain testimony and confessions. The court analyzed these issues under state and federal constitutional standards, considering factors such as harmless error and prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure