BAIRD v. STATE
2017 OK CR 16
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Victim Claudine Marroquin was found buried in a shallow grave behind the couple’s home in September 2013; autopsy concluded death by smothering. Appellant David Baird was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and related offenses.
- Evidence included decomposition consistent with smothering, plastic bags and cords matching items found in the house, a shovel with matching label scrap, removal/sale of victim’s property, a forged vehicle title and use/possession of the victim’s food stamp card.
- First trial ended in mistrial when defense counsel (over Appellant’s expressed wishes) moved for mistrial after the State’s failure to file the search warrant and return in its file.
- On retrial a jury convicted Baird of First Degree Murder (life without parole), Unlawful Desecration of a Dead Body, Forging Certificate of Title, and Obtaining Food Stamps by Fraud; Count 2 was dismissed at close of State’s case.
- Sentencing followed the jury recommendations; total fines and costs were assessed. Baird appealed raising double jeopardy, costs tied to the mistrial, self-defense instructions sufficiency, evidentiary and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baird) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrial after mistrial violated double jeopardy | Retrial permitted because defense counsel requested mistrial; no prosecutorial attempt to goad mistrial | Mistrial was effectively over his objection so retrial barred absent manifest necessity | Defense counsel’s tactical request binds defendant; no evidence State goaded mistrial — retrial not barred |
| Whether court costs/fees tied to mistrial must be disallowed | Costs are part of penalty for conviction; mistrial was part of the prosecution and costs are collectible after conviction | Costs attributable to mistrial should be disallowed | No plain error; costs proper under 28 O.S. §101 and collectible upon conviction |
| Whether self-defense instruction was required and sufficiency to disprove self-defense | No instruction required because evidence did not support self-defense; State not required to disprove it where issue not submitted | Claimed trial court abused discretion by refusing self-defense instruction and State failed to disprove self-defense & malice | Issues waived by improper briefing; on merits evidence insufficient to support self-defense instruction; malice proven circumstantially |
| Admissibility of weapons/photos found in house | Weapons were part of the res gestae of the investigation and relevant to cause of death; probative value outweighed prejudice | Weapons were other-bad-acts evidence and unduly prejudicial | Admission not an abuse of discretion; treated as res gestae and relevant given decomposition limited ME’s ability to identify trauma |
| Sufficiency for forging certificate of title | Evidence showed title bore forged signature; Baird presented it knowing victim was dead and intended to defraud | Argued State failed to prove forgery | Evidence sufficient to convict for forgery |
| Sufficiency for obtaining food stamps by fraud | Card found among Appellant’s belongings; receipts showed groceries purchased with food stamps | Claimed he was authorized family member or didn’t use the card | Evidence sufficient; possession/use of card issued to another is prohibited; eligibility is an asserted defense |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Sentence within statutory range and recommended by jury; no reversible trial error affecting outcome | Life without parole is excessive given alleged errors | Sentence not excessive or shocking the conscience; affirmed |
| Cumulative error claim | No sustained errors to cumulate | Multiple errors collectively denied fair trial | Rejected — cumulative-error relief unwarranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (prosecutorial intentional conduct to provoke mistrial can bar retrial)
- Randolph v. State, 231 P.3d 672 (Okla. Crim. App.) (factors for when jury discharge operates as acquittal)
- Harris v. State, 777 P.2d 1359 (Okla. Crim. App.) (mistrial granted without defendant’s request requires manifest necessity for retrial)
- Davis v. State, 268 P.3d 86 (Okla. Crim. App.) (sufficiency review standard and self-defense instruction principles)
- Bland v. State, 4 P.3d 702 (Okla. Crim. App.) (malice may be proved circumstantially)
- United States v. Burke, 257 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (decision to seek mistrial is tactical and binds defendant)