Eric Jose Barnett was convicted by jury of second-degree felony murder for fatally shooting Vernon Sutton nearly a month after Sutton, a convicted rapist of Barnett's mother, had threatened the family during a confrontation. Barnett appealed, arguing among other claims that the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on self-defense and defense of another, excluding evidence of Sutton's violent character, and that the merger doctrine barred using the underlying felony as the predicate for the murder charge. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected these arguments, holding that the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction because Barnett lacked a reasonable belief of imminent danger when he sought out and shot Sutton, and that the merger doctrine did not apply as the predicate felony was independent of the homicide. The court affirmed the conviction and twenty-three-year sentence.
In Jones v. State, Gregory Eugene Jones was convicted by a jury in Creek County District Court of two counts of child sexual abuse against his stepdaughters and sentenced to consecutive twelve-year prison terms after prior felony convictions. On appeal, Jones raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessive sentences, cumulative error, and the need to correct the judgment and sentence. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found no reversible error in the trial proceedings or counsel's performance but identified an error in the sentencing instructions, which had incorrectly set the minimum term at four years instead of twenty years under the applicable enhancement statute for repeat offenders committing enumerated violent offenses like child abuse. The court therefore affirmed the convictions but remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the proper range of twenty years to life imprisonment.
The case involved the conviction of Wendell Arden Grissom on charges of first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, grand larceny, and felonious firearm possession arising from a 2005 home invasion in rural Blaine County, Oklahoma, in which Grissom shot two women, killing one, while attempting a burglary. A jury found three aggravating circumstances and imposed a death sentence for the murder along with terms of imprisonment on the other counts. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims concerning jury instructions on intoxication and lesser-included offenses, the sufficiency of the evidence, and procedural stipulations, ultimately affirming the convictions and sentences.
The case involved Lawrence Jamere Taylor's appeal from his jury convictions in Tulsa County for first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill, arising from a 2008 shooting incident at an apartment complex where Taylor allegedly shot two men over a debt related to a stereo purchase, killing one and wounding the other. The trial court sentenced Taylor to life imprisonment without parole on the murder count and life imprisonment on the shooting count, to be served consecutively. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed claims concerning the admission of statements made by Taylor to acquaintances and issues under the Confrontation Clause, citing Crawford v. Washington and related precedents on testimonial hearsay and non-hearsay uses of statements. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, reasoning that the challenged statements were either non-testimonial, admissible for purposes other than proving the truth of the matter asserted, or did not violate confrontation rights.
This case involved Richard Zobon Baxter, who was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County of multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession offenses, and traffic violations, all after a prior felony conviction. Baxter appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle after he had been arrested for traffic violations, handcuffed, and secured in a patrol car. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to situations where the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment. The court reversed the convictions on the drug-related counts (I, II, IV, V, VI) due to the lack of any other justification for the search and remanded those for further proceedings, while affirming the traffic-related convictions (VII, VIII, IX).