Opposition Brief — Shaun Michael Bosse, Petitioner v. Oklahoma
Supreme Court briefFeb 1, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Ca s e N o . 17-7232
D EATH P EN ALTY CAS E
IN THE S U P REME COU RT OF THE U N ITED S TATES
S HAU N MICHAEL B OS S E,
P et i t i on er ,
v.
S TATE OF OKLAHOMA,
R esp on d en t .
On P e titio n fo r Writ o f Ce rtio ra ri to th e
Ok la h o m a Co u rt o f Crim in a l Ap p e a ls
B RIEF IN OP P OS ITION TO P ETITION
F OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
MIKE HU N TER
ATTORN EY GEN ERAL OF OKLAHOMA
*THOMAS LEE TU CKER, OB A #20874
AS S IS TAN T ATTORN EY GEN ERAL
313 N E 21 s t S tre e t
Ok la h o m a City , Ok la h o m a 73105
(405) 521-3921
(405) 522-4534 F AX
ATTORN EYS F OR RES P ON D EN T
fh c .d o c k e t@o a g .o k .g o v
th o m a s .tu c k e r@o a g .o k .g o v
*Co u n s e l o f re c o rd
F EB RU ARY 1, 2018
TAB LE OF CON TEN TS
P AGE
QU ES TION S P RES EN TED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
S TATEMEN T OF THE CAS E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
S TATEMEN T OF THE F ACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
REAS ON S F OR D EN YIN G THE WRIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
THIS COU RT S HOU LD D EN Y CERTIORARI REVIEW
TO CON S ID ER AN IS S U E THAT IS U N TIMELY AN D
WAIVED AN D /OR B ARRED F OR F AILU RE TO
EARLIER RAIS E, AN D WHERE THE OKLAHOMA
COU RT OF CRIMIN AL AP P EALS F OLLOWED THIS
COU RT’S ES TAB LIS HED P RECED EN T.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.
Tim e lin e s s a n d Wa iv e r/R es J u d i ca t a .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
B.
Th e OCCA h a s fo llo w e d th is Co u rt’s p re c e d e n t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CON CLU S ION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
i
TAB LE OF AU THORITIES
F ED ERAL CAS ES
Ar a v e v . Cr eech ,
507 U .S . 463, 113 S . Ct. 1534, 123 L. Ed . 2d 188 (1993)............................. 19
Ar i z on a v . Ca l i for n i a ,
530 U .S . 392, 120 S . Ct. 2304, 147 L. Ed . 2d 374 (2000)............................. 18
Bel l v . Con e,
543 U .S . 447, 125 S . Ct. 847, 160 L. Ed . 2d 881 (2005)............................... 23
Boot h v . Ma r yl a n d ,
482 U .S . 496, 107 S . Ct. 2529, 96 L. Ed . 2d 440 (1987)....................... 4, 5, 17
Bosse v . O k l a h om a ,
580 U .S . __, 137 S . Ct. 1, 196 L. Ed . 2d 1 (2016). .......................................... 4
Bu r t v . T i t l ow ,
__U .S .__, 134 S . Ct. 10, 187 L. Ed . 2d 348 (2013). ....................................... 23
Fed . T r a d e Com m ’n v . Mi n n ea p ol i s-Hon eyw el l R eg u l a t or Co.,
344 U .S . 206, 73 S . Ct. 245, 97 L. Ed . 245 (1952). ................................. 15, 16
K r em er v . Ch em . Con st . Cor p .,
456 U .S . 461, 102 S . Ct. 1883, 72 L. Ed . 2d 262 (1982)......................... 18, 19
Lew i s v . J effer s,
497 U .S . 764, 110 S . Ct. 3092, 111 L. Ed . 2d 606 (1990)............................. 20
Ma ssa r o v . U n i t ed S t a t es,
538 U .S . 500, 123 S . Ct. 1690, 155 L. Ed . 2d 714 (2003)............................. 17
Ma yn a r d v . Ca r t w r i g h t ,
486 U .S . 356, 108 S . Ct. 1853, 100 L. Ed 2d 372 (1988)........................ 19, 22
Mk t . S t . R y. Co. v . R .R . Com m ’n of S t a t e of Ca l .,
324 U .S . 548, 65 S . Ct. 770, 89 L. Ed . 1171 (1945). ............................... 14, 15
ii
S t on e v . P ow el l ,
428 U .S . 465, 96 S . Ct. 3037, 49 L. Ed . 2d 1067 (1976)............................... 23
T u i l a ep a v . Ca l i for n i a ,
512 U .S . 967, 114 S . Ct. 2630, 129 L. Ed . 2d 750 (1994)............................. 19
Wa l t on v . Ar i z on a ,
497 U .S . 639, 110 S . Ct. 3047, 111 L. Ed . 2d 511 (1990)............................. 22
R i n g v . Ar i z on a ,
536 U .S . 584, 122 S . Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed . 2d 556 (2002)............................. 22
Ya k u s v . U n i t ed S t a t es,
321 U .S . 414, 64 S . Ct. 660, 88 L. Ed . 834 (1944). ....................................... 17
S TATE CAS ES
Bosse v . S t a t e,
360 P .3d 1203 (Ok la . Crim . Ap p . 2015).................................... 2, 4, 5, 12, 14
Bosse v . S t a t e,
400 P .3d 834 (Ok la . Crim . Ap p . 2017)................................................. 1, 5, 17
Bosse v . S t a t e,
406 P .3d 26 (Ok la . Crim . Ap p . 2017)............................................................. 6
D eR osa v . S t a t e,
89 P .3d 1124 (Ok la . Crim . Ap p . 2004).......................................... 3, 6, 21, 22
S TATE S TATU TES
Ok la . S ta t. tit. 21, § 701.12 (2011). ........................................................................... 2
F ED ERAL RU LES
Ru le 10, R u l es of t h e S u p r em e Cou r t of t h e U n i t ed S t a t es.. ...................... 20, 24
Ru le 13.1, R u l es of t h e S u p r em e Cou r t of t h e U n i t ed S t a t es. .......................... 14
Ru le 13.3, R u l es of t h e S u p r em e Cou r t of t h e U n i t ed S t a t es. .......................... 14
iii
CAP ITAL CAS E
QU ES TION P RES EN TED
S h o u ld th is Co u rt g ra n t c e rtio ra ri re v ie w to c o n s id e r a n is s u e t h a t is
u n tim e ly a n d w a iv e d a n d /o r ba rre d fo r fa ilu re to e a rlie r ra is e , a n d w h e re th e
Ok la h o m a Co u rt o f Crim in a l Ap p e a ls fo llo w e d th is Co u rt’s e s ta blis h e d
p re c e d e n t?
iv
N o . 17-7232
In th e
S U P REME COU RT OF THE U N ITED S TATES OF AMERICA
Oc to be r Te rm , 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
S HAU N MICHAEL B OS S E
P et i t i on er ,
-v s THE S TATE OF OKLAHOMA
R esp on d en t .
______________________________________________________________________________
On P e titio n fo r Writ o f Ce rtio ra ri to th e
Ok la h o m a Co u rt o f Crim in a l Ap p e a ls
______________________________________________________________________________
B RIEF IN OP P OS ITION TO P ETITION
F OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Respon den t r espect fu lly u r ges t h is Cou r t t o den y t h e pet it ion for wr it of
cer t ior a r i t o r eview t h e Opin ion of t h e Okla h om a Cou r t of Cr im in a l Appea ls en t er ed
Ma y 25, 2017. S ee B osse v. S tate, 400 P .3d 834 (Okla . Cr im . App. 2017).
S TATEMEN T OF THE CAS E
P et it ion er is cu r r en t ly in ca r cer a t ed pu r su a n t t o a J u dgm en t a n d Sen t en ce
en t ered in t he Dist r ict Cou r t of McCla in Cou n t y, Ca se No. CF -2010-213, con vict in g h im
of t h r ee cou n t s of fir st degr ee m u r der a n d on e cou n t of fir st degr ee a r son . P et it ion er ’s
con vict ion s a r e t h e r esu lt of a ju r y t r ia l in wh ich h e wa s fou n d gu ilt y beyon d a
r ea son a ble dou bt of m u r der in g Ka t r in a Gr iffin a n d h er t wo ch ildr en , eigh t -yea r -old
Ch r ist ia n Gr iffin , a n d six-yea r -old Ch a sit y H a m m er , in Ms. Gr iffin ’s h om e, a n d t h en
set t in g t h e h om e on fir e.
Th e ju r y fou n d t h e exist en ce of t h r ee a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ces for ea ch m u r der cou n t , n a m ely: (1) du r in g t h e com m ission of ea ch
m u r der , t h e defen da n t kn owin gly cr ea t ed a gr ea t r isk of dea t h t o m or e t h a n on e
per son ; (2) ea ch m u r der wa s especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el; a n d (3) ea ch m u r der
wa s com m it t ed for t h e pu r pose of a voidin g or pr even t in g a la wfu l a r r est or pr osecu t ion .
S ee Okla . St a t . t it . 21, § 701.12 (2011). At t h e con clu sion of P et it ion er ’s t r ia l, t h e ju r y
r ecom m en ded sen t en ces of dea t h for t h e m u r der s, a n d t h ir t y-five yea r s im pr ison m en t
for t h e a r son . Th e t r ia l cou r t sen t en ced P et it ion er a ccordin gly on Decem ber 18, 2012.
F r om h is con vict ion s, P et it ion er filed a dir ect a ppea l wit h t h e Okla h om a Cou r t
of Cr im in a l Appea ls (OCCA). On Oct ober 16, 2015, t h e OCCA a ffir m ed P et it ion er ’s
con vict ion s a n d sen t en ces. S ee B osse v. S tate, 360 P .3d 1203, 1236 (Okla . Cr im . App.
2015) (B osse I).
Releva n t h er e, t h e OCCA a ddr essed a n d r eject ed P et it ion er ’s
a r gu m en t t h a t Okla h om a ’s especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce, a s well a s t h e t wo ot h er a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces fou n d in h is ca se, is
fa cia lly va gu e a n d over br oa d:
In P r oposit ion XIII, Bosse cla im s t h a t t h e
a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces fou n d by t h e ju r y fa iled t o
per for m t h e n a r r owin g fu n ct ion r equ ir ed by t h e E igh t h a n d
F ou r t een t h Am en dm en t s t o t h e Un it ed St a t es Con st it u t ion
a n d Ar t icle II, §§ 7, 9 a n d 20 of t h e Okla h om a Con st it u t ion .
H e a r gu es t h a t n on e of t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces, a s
pr esen t ed t o t h e ju r y t h r ou gh in st r u ct ion s, a dequ a t ely serve
t h e n a r r owin g fu n ct ion n ecessa r y for con st it u t ion a l
2
a pplica t ion of t h e dea t h pen a lt y. We h a ve r epea t edly
r eject ed t h ese a r gu m en t s. Specifica lly, we h a ve fou n d t h a t
t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e defen da n t cr ea t ed a
gr ea t r isk of dea t h t o m or e t h a n on e per son is
con st it u t ion a l. Wood v. S tate, 2007 OK CR 17, ¶ 26, 158
P .3d 467, 477. We h a ve fou n d t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce
t h a t t h e m u r der wa s com m it t ed t o a void a r r est or
pr osecu t ion is su fficien t ly n a r r ow a s t o be con st it u t ion a l.
H an son v. S tate, 2009 OK CR 13, ¶ 48, 206 P .3d 1020, 1034.
We h a ve fou n d t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
m u r der wa s h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el is n a r r ow en ou gh t o
be con st it u t ion a l. S m ith , 2013 OK CR 14, ¶ 61, 306 P .3d a t
577; Postelle, 2011 OK CR 30, ¶ 84, 267 P .3d a t 144. As t h e
St a t e n ot es, Bosse a dm it s t h is bu t a r gu es t h a t t h e
n a r r owing lim it a t ion s for ea ch cir cu m st a n ce a r e in su fficien t
beca u se, h e a lleges, t h ey h a ve been in con sist en t ly a pplied.
We h a ve r eject ed t h is a r gu m en t , st a t in g, “a n a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce does n ot becom e ‘over br oa d’ ba sed u pon t h e
m a n n er it is a pplied t o pa r t icu la r ca ses.” M itch ell v. S tate,
2006 OK CR 20, ¶ 104, 136 P .3d 671, 711 (qu ot in g DeR osa
v. S tate, 2004 OK CR 19, ¶ 91, 89 P .3d 1124, 1155).
In t h is pr oposit ion Bosse a lso com pla in s a bou t t wo
in st r u ct ion s. H e n ot es t h a t t h er e is n o u n ifor m ju r y
in st r u ct ion for t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
defen da n t cr ea t ed a gr ea t r isk of dea t h t o m or e t h a n on e
per son . Bosse n eit h er object ed t o t h e a bsen ce of su ch a n
in st r u ct ion , n or r equ est ed su ch a n in st r u ct ion , a n d h a s
wa ived a ll bu t pla in er r or . Postelle, 2011 OK CR 30, ¶ 86,
267 P .3d a t 144-45. We h a ve h eld t h a t n o sepa r a t e u n ifor m
in st r u ct ion defin in g t h is a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce is
n ecessa r y, fin din g t h a t u se of t h e st a t u t or y la n gu a ge
expla in in g t h is a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce su fficien t ly
in for m s ju r or s wh a t is n ecessa r y t o su ppor t a fin din g t h a t it
is pr esen t . E izem ber v. S tate, 2007 OK CR 29, ¶ ¶ 137-139,
164 P .3d 208, 241. Bosse a lso com pla in s t h e u n ifor m
in st r u ct ion on t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
m u r der s wer e h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el fa ils t o n a r r ow t h e
sen t en cer ’s discr et ion . Bosse object ed t o t h is in st r u ct ion ,
a n d h is r equ est for a differ en t in st r u ct ion on t h is
cir cu m st a n ce wa s den ied by t h e t r ia l cou r t . As Bosse
a dm it s, t h is Cou r t h a s r eject ed t h is cla im . Postelle, 2011
3
OK CR 30, ¶ 84, 267 P .3d a t 144.
den ied.
Th is pr oposit ion is
B osse I, 360 P .3d a t 1229. In per t in en t pa r t , t h e OCCA a lso h eld t h a t t h er e wa s n o
er r or in t h e a dm ission of vict im im pa ct t est im on y t h a t in clu ded sen t en cin g
r ecom m en da t ion s. Id . a t 1226-27. P et it ion er sou gh t a r eh ea r in g in t h e OCCA wh ich
wa s den ied on Decem ber 1, 2015. S ee 12/01/2015 Or der , OCCA Ca se No. D-2012-1128
(u n pu blish ed). P et it ion er ’s a pplica t ion for post -con vict ion r elief wa s den ied by t h e
OCCA in a n u n pu blish ed or der on Decem ber 16, 2015. S ee B osse v. S tate, OCCA Ca se
No. P CD-2013-360, slip op. (Okla . Cr im . App. Decem ber 16, 2015) (u n pu blish ed).
P et it ion er sou gh t cer t ior a r i r eview fr om t h is Cou r t a llegin g er r or in t h e
a dm ission of cer t a in vict im im pa ct eviden ce. Th is Cou r t gr a n t ed cer t ior a r i, va ca t ed
P et it ion er ’s sen t en ce, a n d r em a n ded t h e ca se ba ck t o t h e OCCA in B osse v. Ok lah om a,
580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct . 1, 196 L. E d. 2d 1 (2016). Th is Cou r t ’s opin ion in B osse wa s
lim it ed t o r eview of t h e OCCA’s h oldin g t h a t t h e sen t en cin g r ecom m en da t ion s in t h e
vict im im pa ct t est im on y wer e pr oper ly a llowed. Id . a t ___, 137 S. Ct . a t 2. Th is Cou r t
h eld t h a t t h e OCCA r em a in ed bou n d by t h is Cou r t 's h oldin g in B ooth v. M arylan d , 482
U.S. 496, 107 S. Ct . 2529, 96 L. E d. 2d 440 (1987), t h a t t h e a dm ission of a vict im ’s
fa m ily m em ber s’ opin ion s a bou t t h e a ppr opr ia t e sen t en ce viola t es t h e E igh t h
Am en dm en t , su ch t h a t t h e OCCA er r ed in con clu din g ot h er wise. Id . a t ___, 137 S. Ct .
a t 1-2. Th is Cou r t r em a n ded t h is ca se t o t h e OCCA for fu r t h er pr oceedin gs n ot
in con sist en t wit h it s opin ion . Id . a t ___, 137 S. Ct . a t 3. On Novem ber 16, 2016, t h e
4
OCCA wit h dr ew t h e m a n da t e issu ed in B osse I. Or der Wit h dr a win g Ma n da t e, B osse
v. S tate, OCCA Ca se No. D-2012-1128 (Okla . Cr im . App. Nov. 16, 2016) (u n pu blish ed).
F ollowin g fu r t h er br iefin g fr om bot h pa r t ies on t h e issu e, on Ma y 25, 2017, t h e
OCCA a ga in a ffir m ed P et it ion er ’s con vict ion s a n d sen t en ces. S ee B osse v. S tate, 400
P .3d 834 (Okla . Cr im . App. 2017) (B osse II). Th e opin ion in B osse II ser ved t o r epla ce
t h e opin ion in B osse I a n d discu ssed a ll of t h e issu es or igin a lly r a ised in P et it ion er ’s
dir ect a ppea l. S ee Id . a t 840. H owever , t h e on ly ch a n ge in t h e OCCA’s a n a lysis of t h e
issu es wa s a s t o t h e B ooth issu e. Com pare B osse I, 360 P .3d a t 1214-36, wit h B osse II,
400 P .3d a t 843-67. Wit h r ega r d t o t h e B ooth issu e, t h e OCCA h eld t h a t t h e a dm ission
of t h e sen t en cin g r ecom m en da t ion s wa s er r or , bu t t h e er r or wa s h a r m less beyon d a
r ea son a ble dou bt . B osse II, 400 P .3d a t 855-57. As t o P et it ion er ’s cla im t h a t t h e
a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces in h is ca se a r e fa cia lly va gu e a n d over br oa d, t h e OCCA
r epea t ed ver ba t im it s a n a lysis a n d r eject ion of t h is issu e in B osse I:
In P r oposit ion XIII, Bosse cla im s t h a t t h e
a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces fou n d by t h e ju r y fa iled t o
per for m t h e n a r r owin g fu n ct ion r equ ir ed by t h e E igh t h a n d
F ou r t een t h Am en dm en t s t o t h e Un it ed St a t es Con st it u t ion
a n d Ar t icle II, §§ 7, 9 a n d 20 of t h e Okla h om a Con st it u t ion .
H e a r gu es t h a t n on e of t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces, a s
pr esen t ed t o t h e ju r y t h r ou gh in st r u ct ion s, a dequ a t ely ser ve
t h e n a r r owin g fu n ct ion n ecessa r y for con st it u t ion a l
a pplica t ion of t h e dea t h pen a lt y. We h a ve r epea t edly
r eject ed t h ese a r gu m en t s. Specifica lly, we h a ve fou n d t h a t
t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e defen da n t cr ea t ed a
gr ea t r isk of dea t h t o m or e t h a n on e per son is
con st it u t ion a l. Wood v. S tate, 2007 OK CR 17, ¶ 26, 158
P .3d 467, 477. We h a ve fou n d t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce
t h a t t h e m u r der wa s com m it t ed t o a void a r r est or
pr osecu t ion is su fficien t ly n a r r ow a s t o be con st it u t ion a l.
5
H an son v. S tate, 2009 OK CR 13, ¶ 48, 206 P .3d 1020, 1034.
We h a ve fou n d t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
m u r der wa s h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el is n a r r ow en ou gh t o
be con st it u t ion a l. S m ith , 2013 OK CR 14, ¶ 61, 306 P .3d a t
577; Postelle, 2011 OK CR 30, ¶ 84, 267 P .3d a t 144. As t h e
St a t e n ot es, Bosse a dm it s t h is bu t a r gu es t h a t t h e
n a r r owin g lim it a t ion s for ea ch cir cu m st a n ce a r e insufficien t
beca u se, h e a lleges, t h ey h a ve been in con sist en t ly a pplied.
We h a ve r eject ed t h is a r gu m en t , st a t in g, “a n a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce does n ot becom e ‘over br oa d’ ba sed u pon t h e
m a n n er it is a pplied t o pa r t icu la r ca ses.” M itch ell v. S tate,
2006 OK CR 20, ¶ 104, 136 P .3d 671, 711 (qu ot in g DeR osa
v. S tate, 2004 OK CR 19, ¶ 91, 89 P .3d 1124, 1155).
In t h is pr oposit ion Bosse a lso com pla in s a bou t t wo
in st r u ct ion s. H e n ot es t h a t t h er e is n o u n ifor m ju r y
in st r u ct ion for t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
defen da n t cr ea t ed a gr ea t r isk of dea t h t o m or e t h a n on e
per son . Bosse n eit h er object ed t o t h e a bsen ce of su ch a n
in st r u ct ion , n or r equ est ed su ch a n in st r u ct ion , a n d h a s
wa ived a ll bu t pla in er r or . Postelle, 2011 OK CR 30, ¶ 86,
267 P .3d a t 144-45. We h a ve h eld t h a t n o sepa r a t e u n ifor m
in st r u ct ion defin in g t h is a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce is
n ecessa r y, fin din g t h a t u se of t h e st a t u t or y la n gu a ge
expla in in g t h is a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce su fficien t ly
in for m s ju r or s wh a t is n ecessa r y t o su ppor t a fin din g t h a t it
is pr esen t . E izem ber v. S tate, 2007 OK CR 29, ¶ ¶ 137-139,
164 P .3d 208, 241. Bosse a lso com pla in s t h e u n ifor m
in st r u ct ion on t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
m u r der s wer e h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el fa ils t o n a r r ow t h e
sen t en cer 's discr et ion . Bosse object ed t o t h is in st r u ct ion ,
a n d h is r equ est for a differ en t in st r u ct ion on t h is
cir cu m st a n ce wa s den ied by t h e t r ia l cou r t . As Bosse
a dm it s, t h is Cou r t h a s r eject ed t h is cla im . Postelle, 2011
OK CR 30, ¶ 84, 267 P .3d a t 144. Th is pr oposit ion is
den ied.
Id . a t 859-60. P et it ion er sou gh t a r eh ea r in g in t h e OCCA wh ich wa s gr a n t ed on J u ly
24, 2017, bu t n o r elief wa s given . S ee B osse v. S tate, 406 P .3d 26 (Okla . Cr im . App.
6
2017). Th e OCCA’s opin ion on r eh ea r in g effect ed a ch a n ge on ly t o it s a n a lysis of
P et it ion er ’s cu m u la t ive er r or cla im . S ee Id . a t 26.
S TATEMEN T OF THE F ACTS 1
Ka t r in a Gr iffin lived wit h h er t wo ch ildr en , Ch r ist ia n Gr iffin a n d Ch a sit y
H a m m er , in a m obile h om e loca t ed on h er fa t h er ’s r u r a l McCla in Cou n t y pr oper t y n ea r
Dibble, Okla h om a (1 Tr . 30-34). F or t h e m ost pa r t , Ka t r in a st a yed h om e beca u se sh e
su ffer ed seizu r es t h a t pr even t ed h er eit h er fr om dr ivin g or wor kin g (1 Tr . 35-36, 49).
In ea r ly J u ly 2010, Ka t r in a m et P et it ion er on t h e in t er n et a n d t h e t wo st a r t ed da t in g
(1 Tr . 38-41, 44; 2 Tr . 88-89, 121). P et it ion er qu ickly beca m e pa r t of Ka t r in a ’s wor ld.
On t h e even in g of J u ly 17, 2010, P et it ion er h u n g ou t wit h Ka t r in a , h er cou sin H ea t h er
Molloy a n d Molloy’s boyfr ien d H en r y P r ice, a t Ka t r in a ’s t r a iler . Th ey pla yed video
ga m es, dr a n k beer a n d list en ed t o m u sic (2 Tr . 88-91,127-130).
On J u ly 22, 2010, a r ou n d 6:00 p.m ., P et it ion er a r r ived for a visit a t Ka t r in a ’s
t r a iler (1 Tr . 45-46). Gin ger Gr iffin , Ka t r in a ’s st ep-m ot h er , br iefly en t er ed Ka t r in a ’s
t r a iler t h a t n igh t wh en sh e dr opped Ch a sit y a n d Ch r ist ia n off a ft er a visit n ext door
t o h er h om e. P et it ion er a n d Ka t r in a wer e sit t in g on t h e love sea t in t h e livin g r oom ,
u sin g t h e la pt op (1 Tr . 47-48, 58-59). La t er t h a t even in g, Mr s. Gr iffin r eceived a ph on e
ca ll fr om Ch r ist ia n a skin g if h e h a d left a n y of h is video ga m es a t h er h ou se (1 Tr . 59).
Wh en Mr s. Gr iffin r espon ded t h a t Ch r ist ia n h a d n ot left a n y of h is video ga m es beh in d
1
Refer en ces t o t h e Tr ia l Tr a n scr ipt s will be design a t ed a s “(Vol. No.) Tr .” followed by
t h e pa ge n u m ber . Refer en ces t o t h e Or igin a l Recor d will be design a t ed a s “O.R.”
followed by t h e pa ge n u m ber .
7
bu t , in st ea d, t ook t h em h om e, Ka t r in a got on t h e lin e a n d a sked t h e sa m e qu est ion (1
Tr . 59). At som e poin t du r in g t h is con ver sa t ion , Ka t r in a sa id sh e wa s get t in g a n ot h er
ca ll fr om h er biologica l m ot h er , Rebecca Allen , a n d n eeded t o t a ke it (1 Tr . 59; 2 Tr .
112).
Ms. Allen spoke wit h Ka t r in a sever a l t im es t h a t even in g a bou t t he m issing video
ga m es. Ka t r in a wa s u pset beca u se Ch r ist ia n ’s video ga m es wer e m issin g fr om t h e
t r a iler . Du r in g t h e fir st con ver sa t ion , wh ich occu r r ed a r ou n d 10:00 p.m ., Ka t r in a sa id
P et it ion er a n d t h e ch ildr en wer e pr esen t a t t h e t r a iler wit h h er . Ka t r in a expr essed h er
in t en t t o t r y a n d fin d t h e m issin g video ga m es t h a t n igh t (2 Tr . 117-18). Ka t r in a
believed H en r y P r ice wa s r espon sible for t h eir t h eft a n d t old her m ot her t ha t P et it ion er
wa s goin g t o dr ive h er t o H ea t h er Molloy’s h om e in sea r ch of t h e m issin g video ga m es
(2 Tr . 124). Ka t r in a left sever a l t ext a n d ph on e m essa ges for Molloy a ft er 10:00 p.m .
t h a t n igh t . Molloy wa s a sleep, h owever , a n d did n ot see t h ese m essa ges u n t il t h e n ext
m or n in g (2 Tr . 92-93, 96). Ma lloy descr ibed Ka t r in a ’s m essa ges a s sou n din g “u pset .
. . beca u se h er son ’s video ga m es wer e m issin g” a n d t h a t Ka t r in a sou n ded “a lit t le
m a d” (2 Tr . 96-97). In on e m essa ge, Ka t r in a t old Molloy “sh e kn ew wh er e I lived a n d
t h a t t h ey [wer e] goin g t o com e by.” (2 Tr . 97). In a n ot h er , Ka t r in a wr ot e t h a t sh e wen t
t o Molloy’s h ou se a n d ba n ged on t h e door (2 Tr . 98).
Un su ccessfu l in fin din g t h e m issin g video ga m es, Ka t r in a ca lled t h e McCla in
Cou n t y Sh er iff’s Office t o m a ke a r epor t . At 11:39 p.m ., Depu t y Ken t Cu n n in gh a m wa s
dispa t ch ed t o Ka t r in a ’s m obile h om e. Depu t y Cu n n in gh a m a r r ived a r ou n d 11:52 p.m .
8
on J u ly 22n d a n d fou n d Ka t r in a , h er t wo ch ildr en a n d a n a du lt wh it e m a le a t t h e
t r a iler . Ka t r in a expla in ed t o t h e depu t y t h a t a ppr oxim a t ely fift een (15) video ga m es
fr om h er ch ildr en ’s collect ion wen t m issin g a ft er Ma lloy a n d P r ice visit ed h er t r a iler
t h e pr eviou s Sa t u r da y, J u ly 17t h (2 Tr . 100-105). Ka t r in a spoke wit h h er m ot h er for
t h e la st t im e by ph on e som et im e bet ween 12:30 a n d 1:00 a .m . (2 Tr . 117). Sh e t old
Allen t h a t t h e depu t y h a d ju st left , sh e wa s get t in g t ir ed a n d wa s goin g t o bed (2 Tr .
119). Ka t r in a ’s m ot h er believed ever yt h in g h a d “ca lm ed down ” a n d Ka t r in a t old h er
m ot h er sh e wou ld see h er t om or r ow (2 Tr . 119). Allen , wh o lived in E n id, Okla h om a ,
pla n n ed t o dr ive t o Dibble t h e n ext da y a n d t a ke Ch a sit y ba ck t o E n id for a sh or t visit
(2 Tr . 119-121).
Gin ger Gr iffin left for wor k a r ou n d 7:00 a .m ., J u ly 23, 2010 (1 Tr . 62). Mr s.
Gr iffin looked a t Ka t r in a ’s t r a iler t h a t m or n in g a s sh e dr ove pa st bu t sa w n ot h in g
u n u su a l (1 Tr . 63). Gr iffin did n ot see P et it ion er ’s t r u ck; n or did sh e n ot ice a n y sm oke
(1 Tr . 63). Da r yl Dobbs lived in t h e Gr iffin s’ r u r a l n eigh bor h ood (1 Tr . 87-89). At 8:55
a .m ., Dobbs left h om e (1 Tr . 90). Wh ile dr ivin g ou t of t h e n eigh bor h ood, h e sa w sm oke
com in g fr om t h e t op of Ka t r in a ’s m obile h om e on t h e west side of t h e t r a iler (1 Tr . 9192). Dobbs ba cked u p a n d dr ove t owa r ds Ka t r in a ’s t r a iler wh ile h on kin g h is h or n in
a fu r iou s a t t em pt t o get t h e a t t en t ion of a n yon e n ea r by (1 Tr . 91-92). Dobbs ca lled 911
a n d r epor t ed t h e fir e (1 Tr . 94-95).
At 9:02 a .m ., Wa lt Thom pson , t h e Dibble police ch ief, r espon ded t o t h e fir e ba sed
on Dobbs’s 911 ca ll (1 Tr . 125, 127). Ch ief Th om pson a r r ived a t t h e scen e wit h in
9
m in u t es (1 Tr . 107, 132). Bill Scot t a n d Ma r k P a lm or e, volu n t eer fir em en fr om Dibble,
soon a r r ived wit h t h e t own ’s 1,100-ga llon fir e en gin e (1 Tr . 144-145, 177-178). Cla d in
t h eir self-con t a in ed br ea t h in g a ppa r a t u ses, t h e Dibble fir em en m a de a n im m edia t e
a ssa u lt on t h e fir e wit h wa t er su ppr ession a t t h e fr on t door . Th ey fou gh t ba ck sm oke
a n d fla m es com in g fr om t h e livin g r oom a n d din in g r oom a r ea s a dja cen t t o t h e fr on t
door so t h ey cou ld en t er (1 Tr . 178-180, 186). Du r in g t h eir sea r ch , t h e sm oke in side
wa s in t en se a s t h e h ea t con t in u ed t o r ise; visibilit y “wa s n ext t o n ot h in g” a s t h e Dibble
fir em en sea r ch ed a n d clea r ed t h e t wo bedr oom s a n d on e ba t h r oom on t h e n or t h en d of
t h e t r a iler . Th ey even t u a lly r et r ea t ed ou t side wh en t h eir oxygen t a n ks st a r t ed t o r u n
low (1 Tr . 180-182).
Volu n t eer fir em en fr om n ea r by Wa sh in gt on, Okla h om a , r espon din g t o a m u t u a l
a id r equ est , r elieved Scot t a n d P a lm or e a n d m a de t h eir wa y in side t h r ou gh t h e fr on t
door , t owa r ds t h e sou t h side of t h e t r a iler , in sea r ch of vict im s (2 Tr . 12-19). F ir em en
Der ek Ch eek a n d Ga r y Bolst er wer e cr ou ch in g ver y low t o n a viga t e t h r ou gh t h e t h ick,
bla ck sm oke (2 Tr . 19). Th e Wa sh in gt on fir em en sea r ch ed t h e livin g r oom , kit ch en a n d
u t ilit y r oom a r ea bu t fou n d on ly a few sm a ll fla m es wh ich t h ey qu ickly ext in gu ish ed
(2 Tr . 19-21, 42-43). Th e door sepa r a t in g t h e m a st er bedr oom fr om t h e r est of t h e
t r a iler wa s closed a n d wa s wa r m t o t h e t ou ch . Wit h n o visible sign s of fla m es,
Ch eek—wit h som e effor t —open ed t h e door . In side, t h ey fou n d t h e bodies of Ka t r in a
a n d Ch r ist ia n la yin g on t h e floor (2 Tr . 21-25).
10
Beca u se of a pr oblem wit h t h eir h ose, t h e Wa sh in gt on fir em en r et r ea t ed ba ck
ou t side in t h e m iddle of t h eir sea r ch of t h e m a st er bedr oom (2 Tr . 25-27). Wh en t h e
fir e wa s fin a lly ext in gu ish ed a n d fir em en r et u r n ed in side, t h ey discover ed a m u ch
differ en t scen e com pa r ed t o t h eir in it ia l en t r y. Th e bodies of Ka t r in a a n d Ch r ist ia n
h a d ext en sive bu r n in g a n d wer e cover ed in debr is n ot pr esen t wh en t h e Wa sh in gt on
fir em en fir st fou n d t h em (2 Tr . 39-41, 43). Wor se yet , t h e sever ely ch a r r ed body of
Ch a sit y H a m m er wa s discover ed in side wh a t wa s left of t h e m a st er bedr oom closet ,
cover ed in ch a r r ed debr is (2 Tr . 34; 4 Tr . 98-100; 6 Tr . 31, 34; St a t e’s E xh ibit s 36-37).
Addit ion a lly, in vest iga t or s discover ed wh a t a ppea r ed t o be blood spa t t er fr om ca st off
a n d a r t er ia l blood spu r t s on t h e lower bedr oom wa lls n ea r Ch r ist ia n ’s body. Not a bly,
Ch r ist ia n ’s h ea d wa s pa r t ia lly wr a pped in a bla n ket a n d h e wa s clot h ed on ly in a pa ir
of u n bu t t on ed, u n zipped jea n sh or t s a n d u n der wea r . Ch r ist ia n h a d five (5) st a b
wou n ds t o t h e n eck a n d ch est . A st a b wou n d t o h is r igh t for ea r m wa s con sist en t wit h
bein g a defen sive wou n d. Blu n t for ce t r a u m a over Ch r ist ia n ’s r igh t eyebr ow wa s a lso
eviden t (4 Tr . 113-115, 141-143, 148-155; 6 Tr . 13, 18-20; St a t e’s E xh ibit s. 43, 45, 81,
87).
Ka t r in a ’s body—clot h ed in a t -sh ir t , sh or t s a n d u n der wea r —wa s ba dly bu r n ed
a n d h a d eigh t (8) st a b wou n ds t o t h e n eck a n d a bdom en (4 Tr . 156; 5 Tr . 223). Blu n t
for ce t r a u m a t o t h e r igh t side of h er h ea d wa s a lso obser ved (5 Tr . 225). Ka t r in a ’s fa ce
wa s ch a r r ed a n d t h e eyegla sses sh e n or m a lly wor e, a n d m a n y t im es fell a sleep in , wer e
st ill a t t a ch ed t o h er bu r n ed h a ir (1 Tr . 57-58; 5 Tr . 223). In cised wou n ds on t h e pa lm
11
of Ka t r in a ’s r igh t h a n d wer e cla ssified a s defen sive wou n ds by t h e m edica l exa m in er
(5 Tr . 229, 237-238). Ka t r in a ’s legs wer e fou n d la yin g over Ch r ist ia n ’s legs a n d h er
body wa s cover ed in debr is fr om t h e fir e (4 Tr . 115-116; St a t e’s E xh ibit 47). Ka t r in a ’s
sh ir t wa s bu n ch ed u p over h ea d, h er h a n ds a n d a r m s wer e cr ossed a n d h er body wa s
st r et ch ed ou t on it s side (4 Tr . 116-117, 124; St a t e’s E xh ibit 48). Th is wa s con sist en t
wit h Ka t r in a ’s body h a vin g been dr u g wit h h er a r m s over h er h ea d (4 Tr . 117). In
Ka t r in a ’s r igh t h a n d wa s a kn ife (4 Tr . 118; St a t e’s E xh ibit 49). Th is wa s u n u su a l
beca u se Ka t r in a wa s left -h a n ded a n d t h e kn ife bla de wa s fou n d fa cin g h er body (3 Tr .
94; 4 Tr . 118). Th e kn ife wa s com plet ely ba ckwa r ds in h er h a n d—t h e opposit e of h ow
som eon e u sin g a kn ife wou ld h old it (3 Tr . 95). Addit ion a lly, a kn ife wit h a br oken -off
bla de belon gin g t o Ch r ist ia n wa s fou n d u n der n ea t h Ka t r in a ’s body (4 Tr . 121-122;
St a t e’s E xh ibit 52).
Th e m edica l exa m in er det er m in ed t h e ca u se of dea t h for bot h Ka t r in a a n d
Ch r ist ia n wa s m u lt iple st a b wou n ds (5 Tr . 247; 6 Tr . 30). Neit h er Ka t r in a n or
Ch r ist ia n h a d soot in t h eir n oses or m ou t h s, su ggest in g t h ey wer e m u r der ed pr ior t o
t h e h om e bein g set on fir e (5 Tr . 223; 6 Tr . 13-14). Th e m edica l exa m in er obser ved n o
st a b wou n ds on Ch a sit y’s r em a in s bu t did obser ve blu n t for ce t r a u m a t o t h e r igh t side
of h er h ea d wh ich r esu lt ed in a br u ise (6 Tr . 31-32). Ch a sit y’s legs wer e ch a r r ed t o t h e
m u scle a n d bon e wa s exposed (6 Tr . 33).
Ch a sit y’s ca u se of dea t h wa s sm ok e
in h a la t ion a n d t h er m a l in ju r y (6 Tr . 83). “[T]h a t is, sh e bu r n ed t o dea t h .” B osse, 360
P .3d a t 1227.
12
F or en sic t est in g of st a in s fou n d on P et it ion er ’s t en n is sh oes, a s well a s a pa ir of
blu e jea n s r olled in t o a ba ll a n d pla ced in side t h e ba ck of P et it ion er ’s bedr oom closet ,
t est ed posit ive for blood (2 Tr . 233-236; 4 Tr . 185-186, 189, 193-194; 7 Tr . 67-72). DNA
t est in g of t h e bloodst a in on P et it ion er ’s jea n s r evea led t h e pr esen ce of bot h Ch a sit y’s
a n d P et it ion er ’s gen et ic pr ofiles (7 Tr . 102-107). DNA t est in g of P et it ion er ’s t en n is
sh oes r evea led t h e pr esen ce of Ch a sit y’s a n d Ka t r in a ’s gen et ic pr ofiles (7 Tr . 108-110).
P olice discover ed t h a t P et it ion er pa wn ed n u m er ou s m ovies, t elevision s a n d ot h er
elect ron ic equ ipm en t belon gin g t o Ka t r in a Gr iffin a t seven (7) differ en t Okla h om a City
pa wn sh ops t h e m or n in g of J u ly 23, 2010 (3 Tr . 57-63, 119-237, 267-75; 4 Tr . 31-64).
Sever a l of t h e DVD m ovies P et it ion er pa wn ed (or , in som e ca ses, a t t em pt ed t o pa wn )
h a d t h e h a n dwr it t en let t er s “KRG” wh ich police discover ed wer e h a n dwr it t en in it ia ls
pla ced by Ka t r in a on a ll t h e m ovies sh e own ed (1 Tr . 53-54; 3 Tr . 57-63, 126, 160-161,
214-215). Sever a l DVD m ovies r ecover ed fr om a st a ck fou n d on t op of P et it ion er ’s bed
a lso h a d Ka t r in a ’s in it ia ls (4 Tr . 191-192; St a t e’s E xh ibit 193). A t elevision r em ot e
con t r ol fou n d in P et it ion er ’s t r u ck likewise m a t ch ed on e of Ka t r in a ’s t elevision s t h a t
P et it ion er h a d pa wn ed (4 Tr . 206). Addit ion a l fa ct s m a y be pr esen t ed below a s t h ey
becom e r eleva n t .
13
REAS ON S F OR D EN YIN G THE WRIT
THIS COU RT S HOU LD D EN Y CERTIORARI REVIEW TO
CON S ID ER AN IS S U E THAT IS U N TIMELY AN D WAIVED
AN D /OR B ARRED F OR F AILU RE TO E ARLIER RAIS E, AN D
WHERE THE OKLAHOMA COU R T OF CRIMIN AL AP P EALS
F OLLOWED THIS COU RT’S ES TAB LIS HED P RECED EN T.
A.
Tim e lin e s s a n d Wa iv e r/R es J u d i ca t a .
Cer t ior a r i r eview sh ou ld be den ied on t h is issu e fir st beca u se it is u n t im ely
r a ised. As discu ssed a bove, t h e OCCA con sider ed a n d den ied r elief on P et it ion er ’s
fa cia l va gu en ess ch a llen ge t o t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, a n d cr u el a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce in it s or igin a l decision . S ee B osse I, 360 P .3d a t 1229. Wh ile P et it ion er
filed a cer t ior a r i pet it ion t o seek r eview of t h a t decision , h e did n ot r a ise t h a t issu e in
h is pet it ion . Un der t h e Ru les of t h is Cou r t , a pet it ion for a wr it of cer t ior a r i “is t im ely
wh en it is filed wit h t h e Cler k of t h is Cou r t wit h in 90 da ys a ft er en t r y of t h e
ju dgm en t .” Ru le 13.1, R u les of th e S u prem e Cou rt of th e Un ited S tates. “Th e t im e t o
file a pet it ion for a wr it of cer t ior a r i r u n s fr om t h e da t e of en t r y of t h e ju dgm en t or
or der sou gh t t o be r eviewed, a n d n ot fr om t h e issu a n ce da t e of t h e m a n da t e (or it s
equ iva len t u n der loca l pr a ct ice).” Ru le 13.3, R u les of th e S u prem e Cou rt of th e Un ited
S tates; see also M k t. S t. R y. Co. v. R .R . Com m ’n of S tate of Cal., 324 U.S. 548, 550-52,
65 S. Ct . 770, 772-73, 89 L. E d. 1171 (1945) (h oldin g t h a t t h e Ca lifor n ia a ppella t e r u le
dela yin g t h e issu a n ce of t h e r em it t it ur (i.e., t h e m a n da t e) for 30 da ys a ft er t h e issu a n ce
of a fin a l ju dgm en t does n ot a ffect t h e fin a lit y of t h e ju dgm en t for pu r poses of t h e t im e
for filin g a pet it ion for cer t ior a r i r eview). In M k t. S t. R y. Co., t h is Cou r t expla in ed:
14
We h a ve h eld t h a t fin a lit y of a ju dgm en t of a st a t e
cou r t for det er m in in g t h e t im e wit h in wh ich ou r ju r isdict ion
t o r eview m a y be in voked is n ot con t r olled by t h e
design a t ion a pplied in st a t e pr a ct ice. Th e ju dgm en t for ou r
pu r poses is fin a l wh en t h e issu es a r e a dju dged. . . . Ou r t est
is a pr a ct ica l on e. Wh en t h e ca se is decided, t h e t im e t o
seek ou r r eview begin s t o r u n . A t im ely pet it ion for
r eh ea r in g defer s fin a lit y for ou r pu r poses u n t il it is a ct ed
u pon or u n t il power t o a ct u pon it h a s expir ed a s h er e it
wou ld a ppea r t o do a t t h e en d of t h e 30-da y per iod. If
r eh ea r in g is gr a n t ed, t h e ju dgm en t is open ed, a n d does n ot
becom e fin a l a s a pr er equ isit e t o a pplica t ion for r eview by
u s u n t il decision is r en der ed u pon r eh ea r in g.
M k t. S t. R y. Co., 324 U.S. a t 551-52, 65 S. Ct . a t 773 (cit a t ion s a n d foot n ot e om it t ed).
H er e, t h e OCCA a dju dged t h e issu e of wh et h er Okla h om a ’s especia lly h ein ou s,
a t r ociou s a n d cr u el a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce is fa cia lly over br oa d a n d va gu e in B osse
I, decided in Oct ober 2015, a ft er wh ich r eh ea r in g wa s den ied in Decem ber 2015. Th u s,
P et it ion er ’s a t t em pt t o seek cer t ior a r i r eview of t h is issu e is pla in ly u n t im ely. Th is is
so r ega r dless of t h e fa ct t h a t t h e OCCA su bsequ en t ly wit h dr ew t h e m a n da t e in B osse
I–t h e t im e for seekin g r eview of t h is issu e bega n , u n der t h is Cou r t ’s “pr a ct ica l” r u le,
wh en t h is issu e wa s or igin a lly decided, r ega r dless of t h e issu a n ce or wit h dr a w of t h e
m a n da t e u n der st a t e la w. S ee M k t. S t. R y. Co., 324 U.S. a t 551-52, 65 S. Ct . a t 773.
Nor is it of a n y con sequ en ce t h a t t h e OCCA r epea t ed it s r eject ion of P et it ion er ’s
fa cia l va gu en ess ch a llen ge t o t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s a n d cr u el a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce in B osse II. Th is Cou r t exa m in ed a sim ila r issu e in Fed . T rad e Com m ’n
v. M in n eapolis-H on eyw ell R egu lator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 73 S. Ct . 245, 97 L. E d. 245
(1952), in wh ich it h eld t h a t t h e t im e for filin g a pet it ion for cer t ior a r i r eview r a n fr om
15
t h e or igin a l ju dgm en t en t er ed by t h e Cou r t of Appea ls on J u ly 5, 1951, a n d n ot fr om
a secon d ju dgm en t t h a t wa s en t er ed on Sept em ber 18, 1951, a ft er t h e expir a t ion of t h e
t im e t o file a pet it ion for r eh ea r in g a n d t h a t did n ot h a ve a n y effect on t h e m er it s of t h e
or igin a l decision :
Wh ile it m a y be t r u e t h a t t h e Cou r t of Appea ls h a d
t h e power t o su per sede t h e ju dgm en t of J u ly 5 wit h a n ew
on e, it is a lso t r u e, a s t h a t cou r t it self h a s r ecogn ized, t h a t
t h e t im e wit h in wh ich a losin g pa r t y m u st seek r eview
ca n n ot be en la r ged ju st beca u se t h e lower cou r t in it s
discr et ion t h in ks it sh ou ld be en la r ged. Th u s, t h e m er e fa ct
t h a t a ju dgm en t pr eviou sly en t er ed h a s been r een t er ed or
r evised in a n im m a t er ia l wa y does n ot t oll t h e t im e wit h in
wh ich r eview m u st be sou gh t . On ly wh en t h e lower cou r t
ch a n ges m a t t er s of su bst a n ce, or r esolves a gen u in e
a m bigu it y, in a ju dgm en t pr eviou sly r en der ed sh ou ld t h e
per iod wit h in wh ich a n a ppea l m u st be t a ken or a pet it ion
for cer t ior a r i filed begin t o r u n a n ew. Th e t est is a pr a ct ica l
on e. Th e qu est ion is wh et h er t h e lower cou r t , in it s secon d
or der , h a s dist u r bed or r evised lega l r igh t s a n d obliga t ion s
wh ich , by it s pr ior ju dgm en t , h a d been pla in ly a n d pr oper ly
set t led wit h fin a lit y.
Th e ju dgm en t of Sept em ber 18, wh ich pet it ion er n ow
seeks t o h a ve u s r eview, does n ot m eet t h is t est . It
r eit er a t ed, wit h ou t ch a n ge, ever yt h in g wh ich h a d been
decided on J u ly 5. Sin ce t h e on e con t r over sy bet ween t h e
pa r t ies r ela t ed on ly t o t h e m a t t er s wh ich h a d been
a dju dica t ed on J uly 5, we ca n n ot a scr ibe a n y sign ifica n ce, a s
fa r a s t im elin ess is con cer n ed, t o t h e la t er ju dgm en t .
Fed . T rad e Com m ’n , 344 U.S. a t 211-12, 73 S. Ct . a t 248-49.
H er e, t oo, wit h r ega r d t o P et it ion er ’s fa cia l va gueness cha llenge t o t h e especia lly
h ein ou s, a t r ociou s a n d cr u el a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce, B osse II r eit er a t ed, wit h ou t
ch a n ge, it s decision on t h is issu e in B osse I. It did n ot ch a n ge a n y m a t t er of su bst a n ce
16
wit h r ega r d t o t h is issu e. P et it ion er n ot es t h a t t h e OCCA st a t ed in B osse II, “Th is
Opin ion r eflect s ou r con sider a t ion of t h ose br iefs, a s well a s t h e ot h er a ppella t e br iefs
filed in t h e ca se, a n d r epla ces ou r or igin a l Opin ion .” B osse II, 400 P .3d a t 840; see
P et it ion a t 1 n .1. H owever , B osse II r eflect ed con sider a t ion of t h e or igin a l a ppella t e
br iefs on ly in t h e sen se t h a t t h e opin ion r epea t ed it s a n a lyses on a ll of P et it ion er ’s
cla im s, m in u s t h e B ooth issu e, fr om B osse I. Th is wa s n ecessa r y beca u se t h is Cou r t
va ca t ed B osse I a n d t h e OCCA wr ot e B osse II t o “r epla ce[] [it s] or igin a l Opin ion .” Id .
Th u s, in su m , t h e fa cia l va gu en ess issu e wa s a dju dged a n d decided in B osse I, B osse
II m a de n o ch a n ge t o t h e r esolu t ion of t h is issu e, a n d t h e t im e for seekin g cer t ior a r i
r eview of t h is issu e r a n fr om t h e issu a n ce of B osse I, su ch t h a t P et it ion er ’s cu r r en t
a t t em pt t o seek r eview of t h is issu e is u n t im ely.
Rela t edly, t h is Cou r t sh ou ld fu r t h er den y cer t ior a r i r eview beca u se P et it ion er
cou ld h a ve, bu t fa iled t o, r a ise t h is issu e in h is pr ior pet it ion for cer t ior a r i r eview t o
t h is Cou r t , r esu lt in g in wa iver a n d/or res ju d icata ba r of t h is issu e. It is a ba sic a n d
fu n da m en t a l r u le of lit iga t ion t h a t a pa r t y sh ou ld r a ise a n issu e wh en h e is fir st a ble
t o do so. S ee M assaro v. Un ited S tates, 538 U.S. 500, 508, 123 S. Ct . 1690, 1695, 155
L. E d. 2d 714 (2003) (n ot in g t h e ben efit s of “r u les r equ ir in g cla im s t o be r a ised a t t h e
ea r liest oppor t u n it y”); see also Y ak u s v. Un ited S tates, 321 U.S. 414, 471, 64 S. Ct . 660,
689, 88 L. E d. 834 (1944) (Ru t ledge, J ., dissen t in g) (“It is t r u e t h a t in a va r iet y of
sit u a t ion s a n d for a va r iet y of r ea son s a per son is for eclosed fr om r a isin g issu es,
in clu din g som e con st it u t ion a l on es, wh er e h e h a s fa iled t o exer cise a n ea r lier
17
oppor t u n it y.”). P et it ion er ’s fa ilu r e t o r a ise t h is issu e a t h is fir st oppor t u n it y–i.e., in h is
or igin a l cer t ior a r i pet it ion –sh ou ld r esu lt in wa iver of t h is issu e.
F u r t h er , “[u ]n der res ju d icata, a fin a l ju dgm en t on t h e m er it s of a n a ct ion
pr eclu des t h e pa r t ies or t h eir pr ivies fr om r elit iga t in g issu es t h a t wer e or cou ld h a ve
been r a ised in t h a t a ct ion .” Krem er v. Ch em . Con st. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 467 n .6, 102
S. Ct . 1883, 1890 n .6, 72 L. E d. 2d 262 (1982). “Wh ile t h e t ech n ica l r u les of pr eclu sion
a r e n ot st r ict ly a pplica ble in t h e con t ext of a sin gle on goin g or igin a l a ct ion , t h e
pr in ciples u pon wh ich t h ese r u les a r e fou n ded sh ou ld in for m ou r decision .” Arizon a v.
Californ ia, 530 U.S. 392, 410, 120 S. Ct . 2304, 2316, 147 L. E d. 2d 374 (2000)
(qu ot a t ion m a r ks om it t ed, a lt er a t ion s a dopt ed). R es ju d icata is on e su ch r u le of
pr eclu sion . S ee Id . H er e, a s discu ssed a bove, in B osse I, t h e OCCA con sider ed a n d
den ied r elief on P et it ion er ’s va gu en ess ch a llen ge t o t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s,
a n d cru el a ggra va t ing circum st a n ce, bu t P et it ion er fa iled t o seek r eview of t h a t h oldin g
in h is fir st pet it ion for cer t ior a r i r eview. In deed, P et it ion er ’s fa ilu r e t o seek r eview of
t h is issu e t h en , wh ile n ow seekin g r eview a t t h is ju n ct u r e, st r ikes a t t h e h ea r t of t h e
r ea son s beh in d t h e doct r in e of res ju d icata:
[I]n voca t ion of r es ju dica t a r elieves pa r t ies of t h e cost a n d
vexa t ion of m u lt iple la wsu it s, con ser ves ju dicia l r esou r ces,
a n d, by pr even t in g in con sist en t decision s, en cou r a ges
r elia n ce on a dju dica t ion .
Wh en a st a t e cou r t h a s
a dju dica t ed a cla im or issu e, t h ese doct r in es a lso ser ve t o
pr om ot e t h e com it y bet ween st a t e a n d feder a l cou r t s t h a t
h a s been r ecogn ized a s a bu lwa r k of t h e feder a l syst em .
18
Krem er, 456 U.S. a t 467 n . 6, 102 S. Ct . a t 1890 n .6. Th r ou gh P et it ion er ’s fa ilu r e t o
ea r lier seek r eview of t h is issu e, t h is Cou r t is n ow for ced t o con sider , a n d Respon den t
is for ced t o r espon d t o, a secon d cer t ior a r i pet it ion r a isin g a sin gle issu e t h a t cou ld
h a ve, a n d sh ou ld h a ve, been r a ised in P et it ion er ’s ea r lier pet it ion , r esu lt in g in gr ea t
cost in t im e a n d r esou r ces. Accordin gly, P et it ion er ’s cu r r en t a t t em pt t o seek r eview of
t h is issu e sh ou ld be ba r r ed by res ju d icata.
B.
Th e OCCA h a s fo llo w e d th is Co u rt’s p re c e d e n t.
Th e m er it s of P et it ion er ’s cla im a dva n ces n o com pellin g r ea son t o gr a n t
cer t ior a r i.
P et it ion er pr esen t s n o con flict in feder a l con st it u t ion a l pr eceden t
wa r r a n t in g r esolu t ion , n or does P et it ion er develop a com pellin g feder a l con st it u t ion a l
issu e a r isin g fr om t h e OCCA’s opin ion wa r r a n t in g cer t ior a r i. P et it ion er believes t h e
OCCA h a s r efu sed t o eit h er con sist en t ly a pply it s own lim it in g con st r u ct ion t o t h e
especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce, or t o r equ ir e ju r ies
t o be so in for m ed. To be con st it u t ion a l, a n a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce “m a y n ot be
va gu e,” a n d “m a y n ot a pply t o ever y defen da n t con vict ed of a m u r der ; it m u st a pply
on ly t o a su bcla ss of defen da n t s con vict ed of m u r der .” T u ilaepa v. Californ ia, 512 U.S.
967, 972, 114 S. Ct . 2630, 2635, 129 L. E d. 2d 750 (1994). “If t h e sen t en cer fa ir ly cou ld
con clu de t h a t a n a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce a pplies t o e v e ry defen da n t eligible for t h e
dea t h pen a lt y, t h e cir cu m st a n ce is con st it u t ion a lly in fir m .” Arave v. Creech, 507 U.S.
463, 474, 113 S. Ct . 1534, 1542, 123 L. E d. 2d 188 (1993) (em ph a sis in or igin a l) (cit in g
M ayn ard v. Cartw righ t, 486 U.S. 356, 364, 108 S. Ct . 1853, 1859, 100 L. E d 2d 372
19
(1988) (in va lida t in g a ggra va t ing circum st a n ce t h a t “a n or din a r y per son cou ld h on est ly
believe” descr ibed ever y m u r der )). H owever ,
[I]f a St a t e h a s a dopt ed a con st it u t ion a lly n a r r ow
con st r u ct ion of a fa cia lly va gu e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce,
a n d if t h e St a t e h a s a pplied t h a t con st r u ct ion t o t h e fa ct s of
t h e pa r t icu la r ca se, t h en t h e “fu n da m en t a l con st it u t ion a l
r equ ir em en t ” of “ch a n nelin g a n d lim it in g . . . t h e sen t en cer ’s
discr et ion in im posin g t h e dea t h pen a lt y,” Cartw righ t, 486
U.S., a t 362, 108 S. Ct ., a t 1858, h a s been sa t isfied.
L ew is v. J effers, 497 U.S. 764, 779, 110 S. Ct . 3092, 3101, 111 L. E d. 2d 606 (1990).
Th e OCCA h a s a dopt ed a con st it u t ion a lly n a r r ow con st r u ct ion of t h e especia lly
h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce a n d a pplied t h a t con st r u ct ion t o
P et it ion er ’s ca se.
Th u s, t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce is n ot va gu e a n d over br oa d, a n d t h e OCCA h a s n ot “decided a n im por t a n t
feder a l qu est ion in a wa y t h a t con flict s wit h r eleva n t decision s of t h is Cou r t .” Ru le 10,
R u les of th e S u prem e Cou rt of th e Un ited S tates. Th is Cou r t sh ou ld n ot gr a n t cer t ior a r i
t o r eview t h is pa r t icu la r ca se.
P et it ion er cla im s t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce is va gu e a n d over br oa d, a n d t h a t t h e OCCA does n ot r ou t in ely a pply a
lim it in g con st r u ct ion , n or r equ ir e ju r ies be in for m ed of t h e lim it in g con st r u ct ion .
H owever , a s sh own below, P et it ion er ’s cla im is wit h ou t m er it .
P et it ion er ’s ju r y wa s in st r u ct ed:
Th e St a t e h a s a lleged t h a t t h e m u r der wa s “especia lly
h ein ou s, a trocious, or cruel.” Th is a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce
is n ot est a blish ed u n less t h e St a t e pr oves beyon d a
r ea son a ble dou bt :
20
F ir st , t h a t t h e m u r der wa s pr eceded by eit h er t or t u r e of t h e
vict im or ser iou s ph ysica l a bu se of t h e vict im ; a n d
Secon d, t h a t t h e fa ct s a n d cir cu m st a n ces of t h is ca se
est a blish t h a t t h e m u r der wa s h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el.
You a r e in st r u ct ed t h a t t h e t er m “t or t u r e” m ea n s t h e
in flict ion of eit h er gr ea t ph ysica l a n gu ish or ext r em e m en t a l
cr u elt y. You a r e fu r t h er in st r u ct ed t h a t you ca n n ot fin d
t h a t “ser iou s ph ysica l a bu se” or “gr ea t ph ysica l a n gu ish ”
occu r r ed u n less you a lso fin d t h a t t h e vict im exper ien ced
con sciou s ph ysica l su ffer in g pr ior t o h is/h er dea t h .
In a ddit ion , you a r e in st r u ct ed t h a t t h e t er m “h ein ou s”
m ea n s ext r em ely wicked or sh ockin gly evil; t h e t er m
“a t r ociou s” m ea n s ou t r a geou sly wicked a n d vile; a n d t h e
t er m “cr u el” m ea n s pit iless, design ed t o in flict a h igh degr ee
of pa in , or u t t er in differ en ce t o or en joym en t of t h e su ffer in g
of ot h er s.
(O.R. 1060; In st r u ct ion No. 4-73 (OUJ I-CR(2d)). P et it ion er ’s ju r y fou n d t h e exist en ce
of t h e fir st t h r ee a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ces a n d sen t en ced t h e defen da n t t o dea t h
(O.R. 1090-1095). Th e OCCA h eld:
We h a ve fou n d t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t h a t t h e
m u r der wa s h ein ou s, a t r ociou s or cr u el is n a r r ow en ou gh t o
be con st it u t ion a l. S m ith , 2013 OK CR 14, 61, 306 P .3d a t
577; Postelle, 2011 OK CR 30, 84, 267 P .3d a t 144. As t h e
St a t e n ot es, Bosse a dm it s t h is bu t a r gu es t h a t t h e
n a r r owin g lim it a t ion s for ea ch cir cu m st a nce a re in su fficien t
beca u se, h e a lleges, t h ey h a ve been in con sist en t ly a pplied.
We h a ve r eject ed t h is a r gu m en t , st a t in g, “a n a ggr a va t in g
cir cu m st a n ce does n ot becom e ‘over br oa d’ ba sed u pon t h e
m a n n er it is a pplied t o pa r t icu la r ca ses.” M itch ell v. S tate,
2006 OK CR 20, 104, 136 P .3d 671, 711 (qu ot in g DeR osa v.
S tate, 2004 OK CR 19, 91, 89 P .3d 1124, 1155).
B osse II. a t 860.
21
Wh er e, a s h er e, t h e OCCA a pplied a n in t er pr et a t ion of t h is a ggr a va t or t h a t h a s
pr eviou sly been fou n d con st it u t ion a l, P et it ion er ’s con st it u t ion a l ch a llen ge t o t h a t
a ggr a va t or is a t a n en d. J effers, 497 U.S. a t 779. S ee Walton v. Arizon a, 497 U.S. 639,
654-655, 110 S. Ct . 3047, 3058, 111 L. E d. 2d 511 (1990) (over r u led on ot h er gr ou n ds
by R in g v. Arizon a, 536 U.S. 584, 589, 122 S. Ct . 2428, 2432, 153 L. E d. 2d 556 (2002))
(“In M ayn ard v. Cartw righ t, we expr essed a ppr ova l of a defin it ion t h a t wou ld lim it
Okla h om a ’s ‘especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el’ a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce t o
m u r der s in volvin g ‘som e kin d of t or t u r e or ph ysica l a bu se,’ 486 U.S., a t 364-365, 108
S. Ct ., a t 1859-1860.”). Th e cr u x of P et it ion er ’s a r gu m en t is t h a t in Okla h om a , t h e
a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce does n ot r equ ir e t h e ju r y t o fin d t h a t a vict im m u st su ffer
for a n a ppr ecia ble a m ou n t of t im e pr ior t o dea t h . H owever , t h is Cou r t h a s n ever
m a n da t ed a specific len gt h of t im e t h a t a vict im m u st su ffer .
Th e cu r r en t ver sion of t h e con st it u t ion a lly n a r r ow defin it ion a n d lim it in g
in st r u ct ion wa s fir st espou sed by t h e OCCA in DeR osa v. S tate, 89 P .3d 1124, 1156
(Okla . Cr im . App. 2004). H owever :
Th is in st r u ct ion does n ot ch a n ge a n y of t h e lega l
r equ ir em en t s of t h e “h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el”
a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce a s it h a s exist ed u p u n t il t h is
t im e. Ra t h er , it is in t en ded t o m or e fu lly in for m t h e ju r y
r ega r din g t h e fin din gs t h a t m u st be m a de in or der t o
pr oper ly a pply t h e a ggr a va t or a n d t o en su r e t h a t a ju r y
det er m in a t ion is m a de r ega r din g ea ch of t h ese fin din gs.
Id . Th e OCCA m a n da t ed t h a t t h e in st r u ct ion sh a ll be u sed in a ll fu t u r e ca pit a l m u r der
t r ia ls in wh ich t h e St a t e a lleges t h e especia lly h ein ou s, a t r ociou s, or cr u el a ggr a va t in g
22
cir cu m st a n ce. Id . Accordin gly, P et it ion er ’s cla im t h a t t h e OCCA does n ot r equ ir e
Okla h om a ju r ies t o be in for m ed of t h e lim it in g in st r u ct ion is wit h ou t m er it .
F u r t h er , a s in t h e P et it ion er ’s ca se, t h e OCCA h a s even h a n dedly a pplied t h e
lim it in g con st r u ct ion of t h e a ggr a va t or on dir ect r eview of ca pit a l ca ses. P et it ion er ’s
a llega t ion t h a t t h e OCCA h a s n ot r ou t in ely a pplied t h e lim it in g con st r u ct ion is sim ply
con clu sor y a s P et it ion er fa ils t o cit e even on e OCCA ca se in wh ich t h e lim it in g
con st r u ct ion wa s n ot a pplied. Th e OCCA h a s:
[C]onstrued t he a ggr a va t in g cir cu m st a n ce na rrowly a nd ha d
followed t h a t pr eceden t n u m er ou s t im es; a bsen t a n
a ffir m a t ive in dica t ion t o t h e con t r a r y, we m u st pr esu m e
t h a t it did t h e sa m e t h in g h er e. Th a t is especia lly t r u e in a
ca se su ch a s t h is on e, wh er e t h e st a t e cou r t h a s r ecogn ized
t h a t it s na rrowing const ruct ion is con st it u t ion a lly com pelled
a n d h a s a ffir m a t ively a ssu m ed t h e r espon sibilit y t o en su r e
t h a t t h e a ggr a va t in g cir cu m s t a n ce is a p p lie d
con st it u t ion a lly in ea ch ca se.
B ell v. Con e, 543 U.S. 447, 456, 125 S. Ct . 847, 853, 160 L. E d. 2d 881 (2005).
P et it ion er cit es sever a l Ten t h Cir cu it ca ses t h a t a r e cr it ica l of t h e OCCA’s a pplica t ion
of t h e a ggr a va t or . H owever , “t h er e is n o in t r in sic r ea son wh y t h e fa ct t h a t a m a n is
a feder a l ju dge sh ou ld m a ke h im m or e com pet en t , or con scien t iou s, or lea r n ed . . . t h a n
h is n eigh bor in t h e st a t e cou r t h ou se.” B u rt v. T itlow , __U.S.__, 134 S. Ct . 10, 15, 187
L. E d. 2d 348 (2013) (qu ot in g S ton e v. Pow ell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 n .35, 96 S. Ct . 3037,
49 L. E d. 2d 1067 (1976) (in t er n a l qu ot a t ion m a r ks om it t ed).
23
CON CLU S ION
P et it ion er h a s r a ised a n issu e t h a t cou ld h a ve been r a ised in h is pr ior pet it ion
for wr it of cer t ior a r i. Th u s, t h is pet it ion is u n t im ely a n d sh ou ld be den ied. F u r t h er ,
P et it ion er pr esen t s n o con flict in feder a l con st it u t ion a l pr eceden t wa r r a n t in g
r esolu t ion , n or does P et it ion er develop a com pellin g federa l con st it u t ion a l issu e a r isin g
fr om t h e OCCA’s opin ion wa r r a n t in g cer t ior a r i. Th u s, t h e OCCA h a s n ot “decided a n
im por t a n t feder a l qu est ion in a wa y t h a t con flict s wit h r eleva n t decision s of t h is
Cou r t .” Ru le 10, R u les of th e S u prem e Cou rt of th e Un ited S tates. Accordin gly, for t h e
r ea son s st a t ed a bove, Respon den t r espect fu lly r equ est s t h is Cou r t den y t h e pet it ion for
wr it of cer t ior a r i.
Respect fu lly su bm it t ed,
MIKE HU N TER
ATTORN EY GEN ERAL OF OKLAHOMA
s / THOMAS LEE TU CKER
THOMAS LEE TU CKER, OB A # 20874
AS S IS TAN T ATTORN EY GEN ERAL
313 NE 21st St r eet
Okla h om a Cit y, Okla h om a 73105
(405) 521-3921
F AX (405) 522-4534
Ser vice em a ils
fh c.docket @oa g.ok.gov
t hom a s.t ucker@oa g.ok.gov
ATTORN EYS F OR RES P ON D EN T
*Cou n sel of r ecor d
24
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.