Coddington v. State
2011 OK CR 17
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- James A. Coddington was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma County (CF-97-1500).
- On resentencing in 2008, the jury again recommended death after findings of heinousness, avoidance of arrest, prior violent felony, and continuing threat.
- Coddington appeals raising eighteen propositions of error related to jury selection, trial presence, notice, evidence, instructions, prosecutorial conduct, and ineffective assistance.
- The court analyzes whether any errors were reversible, harmless, or require relief under cumulative-error review.
- Key constitutional questions include the competency of jury selection in capital cases and whether a trial judge’s brief absence from the bench was structural error or trial error.
- The Court affirms the judgment and sentence, denying most relief while granting some evidentiary-record supplementation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurors’ removal for cause to consider all punishments | Coddington argues improper excusals limited death-penalty consideration | State contends excusals proper under Wainwright, Witherspoon | No error in voir dire; proper balancing of impartiality and willingness to consider penalties. |
| Trial judge’s absence during Hood videotape | Absence may be structural error | Absence, if any, did not affect proceedings; not structural | Absence is trial error, harmless here; not reversible per se. |
| Use of jury questionnaires/individual voir dire | Would have aided uncovering bias; mandatory use | Discretionary; total voir dire was adequate | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no automatic right to questionnaires/individual voir dire. |
| Statutory basis to excuse jurors for cause in capital cases | 660(8) restricts to guilt-phase; prevents exclusion for death-penalty views | Two-stage scheme allows exclusion for death-penalty views; statute intact | Statutory interpretation rejected; evolving case law allows excusal for death-penalty views. |
| Notice of aggravating-evidence in resentencing | Notice insufficient for using prior testimony to support aggravator | Notice substantially adequate; other evidence supports aggravator | Not plain error; notice sufficient under statute; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 2009 OK CR 31, 223 P.3d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (capital jury voir dire standards; willingness to consider all punishments)
- Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (requirement to consider all punishments and no automatic death verdict)
- Harmon v. State, 248 P.3d 918 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (Easlick rationale applied to second-stage circumstantial evidence)
- Jones v. State, 201 P.3d 869 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (voir dire and juror evaluation authority)
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 241 P.3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court discretion on voir dire and questionnaires)
- Davis v. State, 665 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983) (punishment-related voir dire and guilt/penalty integration)
- DeRosa v. State, 89 P.3d 1155 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (heinous/cruel aggravator framework; evidentiary standards)
- Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (absence of reasonable-hypothesis instruction cured by Spuehler approach)
- Mitchell v. State, 235 P.3d 640 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (capital sentencing standards; notice and weighting of aggravators)
- Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State (victim impact), 241 P.3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (victim impact evidence; narrowing function of aggravators)