noting that whether a new trial is warranted depends on if “the [newly discovered] evidence creates a reasonable probability that, had it been introduced at trial, it would have changed the outcome”
How later courts described this case
- noting that whether a new trial is warranted depends on if “the [newly discovered] evidence creates a reasonable probability that, had it been introduced at trial, it would have changed the outcome”
- upholding evidence of defendant’s extramarital sexual affair as relevant to prove motive
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by WILLIAMSON v. STATE, 422 P.3d 752 (2018)
2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 126 , 164 P.3d 176, 202 , overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15 , ¶ 51 n.1, 422 P.3d 752
The opinion
LUMPKIN, P.J.:
concur in result.
T1 I agree with the outcome reached in this case, which affirms Appellant's first-degree murder and conspiracy convictions and the sentences set by the jury and then ordered by the trial judge. This is an unusually strong evidentiary case, which leaves little or no doubt that Appellant is guilty of the crimes charged, crimes committed after methodical planning.
12 At times cases come before us where we are challenged to ascertain who is actually responsible for the erime at issue: this is not one of those cases.
T3 Guilty or not, Appellant deserves a fair trial, one that is reliable and that is free of the sorts of errors or accumulations of error that would leave this Court with grave doubts about the outcome.
I 4 Therefore, while I agree that the prop-ogitions raised by Appellant do not merit any relief, I believe today's opinion is a bit too willing to concede error or the possibility of error with respect to what occurred in this trial. As such, I must part ways with significant portions of the analysis.
T5 In my opinion, this case is factually unique due to the repeated attempts on the victim's life. These attempts, in turn, created a rather extended period of time when the victim was experiencing trauma and stress that was truly startling and extraordinary. As such, many of the deceased's statements, which are found to be error or potential error in today's opinion, were admissible hearsay under the state of the mind exception, 12 0.8.2001, § 2808(2). Furthermore, such statements were for the most part admissible under 12 0.8.2001, § 2804(B)(2).
T 6 In addition, much of the "other crimes" evidence went directly to the issue of motive, intent, preparation, and planning, all of which were highly relevant and intricately connected to the State's theory and burden of proof. I also find the statements regarding insurance transfers admissible.
17 That is not to say that this was an error-free trial. Few trials, if any are. I am thus bothered by the denial of a defense witness, despite credibility issues, and two instructions that should have been given.
18 Nevertheless, the evidence in this case is overwhelming and I find the errors in this case are overwhelmed by the strong evidence of guilt. I am simply not convinced that any reversible error took place in this case.