BOSSE v. STATE
2015 OK CR 14
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Shaun Bosse was convicted by jury of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree arson; jury found multiple aggravators and recommended three death sentences. Trial court sentences affirmed by Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.
- Victims: Katrina Griffin and her two children (Christian, 8, and Chasity, 6). Evidence showed Katrina and Christian died of stab wounds; Chasity died of smoke inhalation and burns after being barricaded in a closet.
- Physical and forensic evidence tied Bosse to the victims and scene: victims’ property pawned by Bosse the morning after the fire, victims’ blood and DNA on Bosse’s shoes and clothing, and items from the trailer found in his truck/apartment.
- Forensic fire expert (BATF) and fire-research engineer conducted replication burns; court held a Daubert hearing and admitted the experimental fire evidence establishing incendiary origin and a multi-hour smoldering timeline.
- Key contested trial issues on appeal: admissibility and relevance of fire‑testing evidence; prosecutor’s use of Bosse’s refusal to consent to a vehicle search; gruesome victim photos; victim‑impact testimony and opinion; accreditation of the Medical Examiner’s office; sufficiency of evidence for aggravators; and multiple claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bosse) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BATF fire‑replication experiments (Daubert relevance) | Lord’s burn tests did not replicate actual conditions (windows/roof/skirting differences) and thus were irrelevant and unreliable. | Tests recreated essential conditions; differences go to weight not admissibility; court acted within gatekeeper discretion. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; experiments admissible and probative. |
| Prosecutor’s use of Bosse’s refusal to consent to warrantless truck search | Refusal was exercised Fourth Amendment right; using it as substantive evidence of guilt violated due process and constitutional protections. | Evidence of refusal was relevant to the chain of events and to rebut claims of full cooperation; prosecutor argued inferences from conduct. | Court assumed, without deciding, that using refusal as substantive evidence may be error but found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming admissible evidence. |
| Admissibility of gruesome victim photographs (esp. child) | Certain pre/post‑mortem photos of Chasity were unduly prejudicial and their admission violated due process/Eighth Amendment. | Photographs were relevant to show scene, corroborate ME testimony, and the State limited cumulative exhibits. | Most photos admissible; two particularly disturbing photos of Chasity were erroneously admitted but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Medical Examiner’s office accreditation and admissibility of autopsy testimony | Because the Medical Examiner’s office lacked accreditation, ME testimony (cause/manner) was inadmissible under forensic‑lab accreditation statute. | Title 63 duties and statutory scheme for Medical Examiner govern; accreditation concerns go to weight, not admissibility. | ME testimony admissible; lack of office accreditation affects weight for jury, not per se inadmissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeper reliability and relevance for scientific evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert framework applies to technical and expert testimony)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prosecutorial comment on defendant's silence impermissible)
- Salinas v. Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2174 (plurality: noncustodial silence not protected unless expressly invoked)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (Eighth Amendment does not per se bar victim‑impact evidence at sentencing)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787 (10th Cir.: refusal to consent may be admissible only for proper purposes; adverse inferences risk impermissibility)
- United States v. Clariot, 655 F.3d 550 (6th Cir.: exercise of constitutional rights, including refusal to consent, not evidence of guilt)
- United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir.: extended Griffin reasoning to refusal to consent to search)