Opinion

Norton v. State

  • 73 O.B.A.J. 689
  • 43 P.3d 404
  • 2002 OK CR 10
  • 2002 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 9
  • 2002 WL 287529
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Feb 28, 2002
Status
Published
Author
Chapel
On the bench
Johnson, Viee-Presiding, Lumpkin, Strubhar, Lile, Chapel
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.3%

concluding that "superfluous definition" of term that "was not enumerated as an element of the offense" was "harmless"

How later courts described this case

  • concluding that "superfluous definition" of term that "was not enumerated as an element of the offense" was "harmless"
  • waiver of the right to counsel will not be "lightly presumed"
  • “We therefore hold, consistent with Coleman[], that the denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing is subject to harmless error analysis.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*410 CHAPEL, J.,

Dissenting:

{1 In 1987 this Court considered whether denial of counsel at preliminary hearing could be harmless error. In Cleek v. State, 1 we determined that, as the Oklahoma constitution provides for preliminary hearing, this was a critical stage of trial and a defendant must be afforded counsel. We considered the corresponding United States Supreme Court case law holding a denial of counsel potentially harmless, 2 and determined that the provisions of our state constitution differed significantly enough to compel a different result. We decided that, under the Oklahoma constitution, denial of counsel at preliminary hearing was reversible error. 3 Although nothing has changed in the intervening years, the majority proposes we revisit Cleek and reach the opposite conclusion.

[2 I believe Cleek is correctly decided on state constitutional grounds. I see no inconsistency in saying that a defendant may not be denied counsel at preliminary hearing, but may waive preliminary hearing under certain cireumstances. Indeed, one may waive counsel at preliminary hearing. However, a defendant's choice to waive either counsel or preliminary hearing itself cannot be compared to denial of the right to representation at a critical stage of criminal proceedings. I might go along with an argument that Norton waived his right to counsel, but the majority finds no waiver, and I will not disagree In that case I 'think reversal is required.

. 1987 OK CR 278 , 748 P.2d 39 .

. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 , 90 S.Ct. 1999 , 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970).

. Cleek, 748 P.2d at 41 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.