COLE v. TRAMMELL
2015 OK CR 13
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Benjamin Robert Cole was convicted of first-degree child abuse murder for the 2002 killing of his nine‑month‑old daughter; jury recommended and trial court imposed death.
- Post-conviction and federal habeas challenges were denied; Cole exhausted appeals including the U.S. Supreme Court and Glossip proceedings regarding Oklahoma's lethal‑injection protocol.
- With an execution date set for October 7, 2015, Cole sought state mandamus/prohibition and a stay, arguing he was incompetent to be executed under 22 O.S. § 1005 and that the State must use an ultrashort‑acting barbiturate plus paralytic per 22 O.S. § 1014.
- The Pittsburg County District Court held an evidentiary hearing, received mental‑health records and witness testimony (including a retained psychiatrist), and found Cole failed to make the "substantial threshold showing" of insanity required to trigger a sanity jury under Allen v. State.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, found Cole understood the nature and reason for his execution despite some religiously framed statements and minor mental illness signs, and denied extraordinary relief (mandamus and prohibition) and the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cole) | Defendant's Argument (Warden/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma's procedure for competency‑to‑be‑executed claims is unconstitutional because initiation rests with the warden | Procedure violates due process by leaving initiation to an executive official | State procedures (22 O.S. §1005 and mandamus review) provide due process and judicial oversight | Procedure upheld; follows Allen — facially constitutional |
| Whether Cole made the necessary "substantial threshold showing" of insanity to trigger a sanity adjudication | Cole presented writings, expert testimony, and witness statements showing delusions and schizophrenia signs | Record shows Cole understood his crime, punishment, and impending fate; evidence of religious fervor not equivalent to incapacity | Cole failed to meet the threshold; presumption of sanity not overcome |
| Whether Cole's religious statements/delusions negate rational understanding of State's rationale for execution (Panetti standard) | Religious claims and an expert's opinion showed delusional belief that God commanded the killing or distorted rationale for execution | Experts and prison staff testified Cole acknowledged he was being executed for murdering his daughter and discussed events coherently | Court distinguished Panetti; religious statements were not fixed delusions about the State's rationale — competence maintained |
| Whether Cole may prohibit use of non‑barbiturate drugs and require execution method specified in earlier statute | Execution protocol must use ultrashort‑acting barbiturate plus paralytic per §1014; benzodiazepine use would violate statute and warrant prohibition | Method of execution challenge is proper in post‑conviction process; statutory change is procedural and does not alter punishment | Prohibition denied; challenge improperly presented here and, on merits, §1014 change is procedural and does not bar current protocol |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of the insane)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (prisoner must have a rational understanding of the reason for execution; delusions can defeat competence)
- Allen v. State, 2011 OK CR 31, 265 P.3d 754 (Oklahoma procedure for sanity‑to‑be‑executed claims facially complies with federal due process and mandates a "substantial threshold showing")
- Cole v. State, 2007 OK CR 27, 164 P.3d 1089 (Cole's conviction and earlier competency findings)
- Bingham v. State, 169 P.2d 311 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946) (traditional Oklahoma test for sanity to be executed)