ASHTON v. STATE
2017 OK CR 15
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Isaac Luna Ashton was convicted by a jury of two counts of First Degree Murder and one count of Unlawful Carrying a Weapon; sentenced to life without parole on each murder count (to run consecutively) and 30 days on the weapons count (concurrent).
- Victims Verdell Walker and Tiara Sawyer were shot in the parking lot outside Ashton’s apartment in Tulsa; four civilian witnesses placed Ashton as the shooter; victims were unarmed.
- Ashton admitted carrying the .38 revolver, fled the scene with two companions (Goff and Brown), and initially lied to police; the revolver and spent casings were recovered and ballistically matched to the projectiles.
- Tyesha Goff, one of the companions, invoked the Fifth Amendment at trial and did not testify; the defense sought admission of a prosecutorial summary of Goff’s out‑of‑court statements and alternatively claimed the court should compel or immunize her testimony.
- Ashton raised five main claims on appeal: denial of right to present a complete defense (related to Goff’s invocation/immunity/hearsay summary), erroneous flight instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error. The Court affirmed the convictions and denied an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective‑assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ashton) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to present complete defense — Goff’s Fifth Amendment invocation | Trial court wrongly permitted Goff to invoke privilege, preventing Ashton from presenting her exculpatory testimony | Goff faced real risk of prosecution (accessory); privilege properly applied | Court: No abuse of discretion; privilege properly allowed |
| Immunity for defense witness under OK Const. art. II, §27 | Trial court should have granted Goff immunity so she would testify | Immunity unavailable absent prosecutor agreement approved by court or compulsion after denied privilege | Court: No authority to grant immunity; requirement not met; no error |
| Admission of prosecutor’s out‑of‑court summary of Goff (statement against interest/hearsay within hearsay) | Summary was a statement against penal interest and should be admitted | Summary contained hearsay within hearsay; prosecution’s summary statements lacked independent hearsay exception foundation | Court: Exclusion proper — each layer of hearsay must meet an exception; summary inadmissible but harmless because cumulative evidence existed |
| Flight instruction (consciousness of guilt) | Instruction assumed guilt and shifted burden | Instruction proper where defendant testifies and flight evidence exists | Court: Instruction appropriate; no plain error |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (threatening witness, factual and legal misstatements, sympathy appeals) | Prosecutor intimidated Goff, argued facts not in evidence, expressed personal opinion, appealed for sympathy, misstated law | Prosecutor properly raised concern about Goff’s exposure, did not threaten, arguments were reasonable inferences or invited by defense, and comments did not mislead jury | Court: No plain error; cumulative effect not prejudicial |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to test victim’s shirt for GSR | Counsel deficient for not testing shirt; could have shown distance and undermined executions claim | No prejudice shown; outcome would not likely differ; testing incomplete and speculative | Court: Strickland not satisfied; no evidentiary hearing warranted |
| Cumulative error | Cumulative errors deprived Ashton of fair trial | Alleged errors were meritless/harmless | Court: Denied; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. Supreme Court—right to present a complete defense)
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. Supreme Court—limits on excluding critical, trustworthy evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court—ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (U.S. Supreme Court—impermissible judicial/prosecutorial interference with defense witnesses)
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (U.S. Supreme Court—broad construction of Fifth Amendment privilege)
- United States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing proper warning from improper witness intimidation)
- Pavatt v. State, 159 P.3d 272 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (Fifth Amendment privilege and defendant’s opportunity to present defense)
- Mitchell v. State, 876 P.2d 682 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (flight instruction appropriateness)
- Malone v. State, 293 P.3d 198 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (cumulative effect/prosecutorial misconduct review)