DANIELS v. STATE, 369 P.3d 381

Edwin Jermaine Daniels was convicted by a Tulsa County jury of first-degree malice murder and shooting with intent to kill; jury imposed life terms on both counts and a $10,000 fine on the shooting count; sentences ordered consecutive.
Daniels appealed raising four propositions: (1) jury was misinstructed to impose a mandatory $10,000 fine on the shooting count; (2) trial court failed to give an informer-credibility instruction for witness Damario Adams; (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
No contemporaneous objections or requests for the disputed instructions were made at trial; appellate review of those instructional claims proceeded under plain-error review.
Daniels also requested an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.11 alleging counsel failed to obtain a police video statement of Adams; the existence and content of any recording was not shown.
The Court reviewed the record, applicable statutes, and precedent and concluded the challenged errors did not produce a miscarriage of justice or violate Daniels’ rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Mandatory fine instruction	Trial court instructed as if $10,000 fine was mandatory on shooting count	Instruction was erroneous because §64 makes fines discretionary up to $10,000	Instruction misphrased but not plain error; jury would still have imposed $10,000 fine, so no relief
2. Informer-credibility instruction	Court should have given specific informer credibility instruction for Adams	General witness-credibility instruction was sufficient; jury knew credibility issues	No miscarriage of justice; omission not reversible under plain-error review
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to preserve instructional errors and failed to obtain/review Adams’ video statement	Errors were within reasonable professional judgment; no evidence recording exists or would change outcome	Strickland not satisfied; no reasonable probability of a different result; evidentiary hearing denied
4. Prosecutorial misconduct	Prosecutor’s closing comments deprived Daniels of a fair trial	Comments did not so prejudice the jury as to deny a fair trial	Prosecutorial remarks did not cumulatively deprive defendant of a fair trial; claim denied

Ashinsky v. State, 780 P.2d 201 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (standards for reversal based on jury instruction error).
Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error definition affecting substantial rights).
Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (plain error affecting outcome standard).
Carter v. State, 147 P.3d 243 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (review of instructional errors under statutory harmless-error standard).
Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (instructions as a whole must state law accurately).
Barnard v. State, 290 P.3d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (plain-error review where no objection made to instructions).
Short v. State, 980 P.2d 1081 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (prosecutorial misconduct reversals require prejudice to a fair trial).
Warner v. State, 144 P.3d 838 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (cumulative effect standard for prosecutorial misconduct).
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel).