CRIPPS v. STATE
2016 OK CR 14
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Brian Cripps was tried by jury in Tulsa County and convicted of Second Degree Automobile Manslaughter; sentenced to 4 years and a $1,000 fine; acquitted of first-degree manslaughter.
- Cripps appealed raising three propositions: (1) improper admission of accident-reconstruction expert testimony that placed him in the vehicle; (2) blood-alcohol evidence should have been suppressed; (3) double jeopardy/ban on retrial for greater offenses after acquittal.
- The State presented an accident reconstruction expert (Stephens) who opined about expected occupant locations based on wreckage and injuries but did not expressly state Cripps was driving.
- Officers drew Cripps’ blood pursuant to Oklahoma’s implied-consent statute for drivers involved in fatality/great-bodily-injury crashes (47 O.S. §10-104(B)); trial court denied suppression after finding exigent circumstances.
- The appellate court reviewed (1) admissibility of expert testimony under Oklahoma evidence law/Daubert principles, (2) suppression ruling under Fourth Amendment standards and implied-consent statutory scheme, and (3) retrial mootness given no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of accident-reconstruction expert testimony | State: Stephens’ testimony was specialized, based on scene facts and reliable methods, and did not tell jury the result to reach | Cripps: testimony speculated about who was driving and was unreliable/impermissible expert opinion | Court: No abuse of discretion; testimony was non-novel, based on sufficient facts and reliable methods and did not state ultimate verdict to jurors |
| Suppression of blood-alcohol evidence (warrantless nonconsensual draw) | State: §10-104(B) authorizes compelled testing after fatal/great-bodily-injury crash; accident itself supplies probable cause and justifies draw; exigency found | Cripps: McNeely forbids per se warrantless blood draws; he could have revoked implied consent upon regaining consciousness | Court: §10-104(B) constitutional as applied; blood draw lawful here (probable cause and exigency due to fatality/critical injuries); denial of suppression not an abuse of discretion |
| Applicability of McNeely to §10-104(B) | Cripps: McNeely requires case-by-case exigency analysis and rejects per se rules for nonconsensual blood draws | State: §10-104(B) differs from Missouri’s statute in McNeely; exigency in §10-104(B) stems from fatality/great bodily injury, not merely alcohol dissipation | Court: Distinguishes McNeely’s per se analysis from §10-104(B); upholds statute as applied here while noting exigency facts supported the draw; concurrence/dissent disagree on scope |
| Double jeopardy / retrial for greater offenses | Cripps: acquitted of first-degree manslaughter and negligent homicide; cannot be retried for those offenses | State: Not argued as reversible given other rulings | Court: Moot—no retrial issue because no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert-admissibility standard for scientific testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert principles extend to technical and other specialized expert testimony)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (natural dissipation of alcohol does not create categorical exigency for warrantless blood draws)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (warrantless blood draw upheld under facts showing exigency; Schmerber exigency framework)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (seriousness of offense alone does not create exigency to bypass warrant requirement)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (distinguishes breath and blood tests; recognizes blood draws may be administered to unconscious persons but stresses warrant principles)
- State v. Shepherd, 840 P.2d 644 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (state statute allowing nonconsensual blood draws must be applied in a manner consistent with Fourth Amendment exigency analysis)