BOSSE v. STATE
400 P.3d 834
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Shaun Bosse was convicted by jury of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree arson; jury found multiple aggravating circumstances and returned three death sentences; convictions affirmed by this Court but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and remanded limited to victim-impact evidence issues (Bosse v. Oklahoma), prompting reconsideration.
- Victims: Katrina Griffin and her two children were found stabbed and/or burned in a mobile home fire; evidence showed stabbing deaths for Katrina and Christian and smoke inhalation/thermal injury for Chasity; bodies and scene indicated a struggle, defensive wounds, and that Chasity was locked in a closet.
- Strong linking evidence: items from the trailer (many marked “KRG”) were pawned by Bosse the morning after the fire; Katrina’s items and fingerprints/DNA connected to Bosse; blood consistent with victims found on Bosse’s clothing and shoes.
- Forensic/scene evidence: BATF investigators and a BATF fire-research engineer (Lord) performed scaled burn experiments to replicate the trailer fire and opined the fire was incendiary and could have smoldered hours before re-ignition; Daubert/Kumho admissibility was litigated pretrial.
- Procedural/practical points: trial court admitted (a) Lord’s experimental fire testimony, (b) evidence that Bosse initially refused consent to search his truck (and later consented), (c) gruesome and pre‑mortem photographs, (d) victim‑impact testimony including witnesses who stated “death,” and (e) medical examiner testimony despite the Medical Examiner’s office lacking accreditation; many issues reviewed for abuse of discretion or harmless error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bosse) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of fire‑test experiments (Daubert/Kumho) | Lord’s burn tests did not replicate key conditions (windows, roof, furniture) and thus lacked relevant scientific connection; testimony should be excluded. | Tests reasonably reproduced material scene parameters; differences go to weight, not admissibility. | Court affirmed admission: experiments sufficiently similar and relevant; differences for cross‑examination/weight. |
| Using refusal to consent to search as substantive evidence | Prosecutor’s use of Bosse’s initial refusal to allow a search impermissibly penalized exercise of Fourth Amendment rights and was used as evidence of guilt. | Testimony about refusal was admissible to explain police conduct and to rebut Bosse’s portrayal of full cooperation; comments were permissible argument. | Court assumed, without deciding, that such use is impermissible but found error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming incriminating evidence; conviction stands. |
| Victim‑impact witnesses recommending death | Family members’ recommendation of death was improper under Booth/Gathers and the Supreme Court’s remand (Payne limited); Bosse argued such recommendations violate Eighth Amendment. | State relied on Payne and prior holdings allowing victim‑impact evidence; recommended‑sentence remarks argued relevant and limited. | Court held witnesses should not have recommended death (conceding Bosse v. Oklahoma), but applied harmless‑error review and found the single‑word recommendations were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility of medical examiner testimony when office unaccredited | Because the Medical Examiner’s office lacked accreditation per the Forensic Laboratory Accreditation Act, Dr. Yacoub’s autopsy testimony was inadmissible. | Title 63 duties and statutory scheme for medical examiner testimony are distinct; lack of lab accreditation affects weight, not admissibility; pathologist testimony remains admissible. | Court held accreditation issue goes to weight, not admissibility; Dr. Yacoub’s testimony admissible and jurors could consider accreditation in assessing credibility. |
| Admission of especially gruesome photographs (child victim) | Certain pre‑ and post‑mortem photos of Chasity were unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. | Photographs were relevant to show scene, wounds and corroborate ME testimony. | Court found two particularly disturbing photos of Chasity were improperly admitted (abuse of discretion) but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standards for scientific expert evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles apply to nonscientific technical expert testimony)
- Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (admission of victim‑impact evidence; discussed and limited by subsequent Supreme Court action in Bosse)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (prohibits prosecutorial comment that treats defendant’s silence as substantive evidence of guilt)
- Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (plurality on requirements to invoke Fifth Amendment during noncustodial questioning; discussed as distinguishable)
- 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 for proper limited purposes but not to infer guilt)
- United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir.) (extends Griffin rationale to Fourth Amendment context; refusal to consent not substantive evidence of guilt)
- United States v. Clariot, 655 F.3d 550 (6th Cir.) (exercise of constitutional rights, including refusal to consent, is not evidence of guilt)