# Harjo v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · December 9, 1994 · 882 P.2d 1067

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855133

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerald Wayne HARJO, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 9, 1994
- **Citations:** 882 P.2d 1067; 1994 WL 376120
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumpkin
- **Judges:** Lumpkin, Johnson, Strubhar, Lane, Chapel
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855133

## Opinion text

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of the convictions but write separately to address the following issues. In reviewing Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the murder conviction, the record shows the proof presented at trial consisted of both direct and circumstantial evidence. Therefore the proper standard of review is that set forth in Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985); whether after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moore v. State, 788 P.2d 387, 400 (Okl.Cr.1990). Direct evidence of Appellant’s guilt *1083 came from his own admission that, while wearing a pillow case over his head, he placed a pillow over the victim’s face and kept it there despite her struggle to resist. See Nichols v. State, 418 P.2d 77, 84 (Okl.Cr.1966). While Appellant argues he did not intend to kill the victim but “just got carried away,” the “intent” to commit an offense can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Robedeaux v. State, 866 P.2d 417, 429 (Okl.Cr.1993). Here, the jury could reasonably infer, from all the facts and circumstances, the existence of a premeditated design or intent to kill.
Further, the evidence supporting the aggravating circumstance of especially heinous, atrocious or cruel clearly shows the death of the victim was preceded by serious physical abuse or torture. The medical examiner testified the victim had bruises on her neck and chest, her lower dentures were out of place, she had scratches on her wrists and lips, scratches and bruises were present around her vagina. All of these injuries had been sustained by the victim prior to her death. The victim ultimately died from asphyxia caused by smothering or a combination of smothering and strangulation. The fatal wound occurred when the victim’s thyroid cartilage was fractured. The victim also had pinpoint hemorrhages in her eyes, a common finding supporting the asphyxiation finding. Appellant even admitted the victim struggled and fought for her life. Death by suffocation is not an instant death. It consists of both serious physical and mental abuse. A struggle to grasp the next fleeting breath of needed oxygen, while at the same time being mentally and emotionally traumatized by a conscious realization that life is being drained from the body by that deprivation of air. A close examination of this evidence supports the jury’s finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855133. Public record. Not legal advice.