DAVIS v. STATE
419 P.3d 271
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Terron A. Davis was tried jointly and convicted by a jury in Cleveland County of: Attempted Robbery with a Weapon (Count 1), Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon (Count 2), and First‑Degree Burglary (Count 3); sentences: 25 years on Counts 1 and 3, life on Count 2; concurrent sentences.
- The convictions followed an incident where Davis stabbed the victim in the chest during an entry into an occupied duplex; the stabbing occurred before a separate attempted robbery.
- Davis raised ten propositions on direct appeal challenging multiple punishment, jury instructions, refusal of lesser‑offense instructions, denial of severance, peremptory challenges, admission of extrajudicial identifications, failure to give an eyewitness‑identification cautionary instruction, ineffective assistance of counsel, excessiveness of sentence, and cumulative error.
- The Court reviewed preserved claims de novo or for abuse of discretion and unpreserved claims for plain error.
- The Court affirmed all convictions and sentences, rejecting each proposition and finding no plain error requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple punishment under 21 O.S. § 11 | Convictions for stabbing, burglary, attempted robbery produce impermissible multiple punishment | Offenses were distinct acts requiring different proof; committed in sequence | No plain error; offenses distinct in time and proof; convictions valid |
| Instruction: intent to kill for AB Deadly Weapon | Trial instruction allowed conviction without proof of intent to kill; should require intent to kill | Assault & battery with a deadly weapon does not require intent to kill under controlling precedent | Denied; Court reaffirmed no intent‑to‑kill element required (no plain error) |
| Lesser related offense instruction (dangerous weapon) | Court should have instructed on lesser related offense | Evidence showed a life‑threatening stab wound; no prima facie evidence of mere intent to injure | Denied; abuse‑of‑discretion review: evidence did not support lesser instruction |
| Severance of trials with codefendants | Joinder prejudiced Davis; defenses were antagonistic | Defenses were consistent (attacked State's witnesses); no finger‑pointing; jury instructed to consider separately | Denied; no abuse of discretion in refusing severance |
| Separate peremptory challenges | Davis should have five separate peremptory challenges because defenses inconsistent | No inconsistent defenses were asserted at time; counsel jointly exercised challenges; no showing of prejudice | Denied; claim waived except plain error and no actual/obvious error shown |
| Admission of extrajudicial identifications | Testimony about prior ID (Rogers, officer) was inadmissible and prejudicial | Extrajudicial ID is admissible; statutes (12 O.S. § 2801(B)(1)(c) and § 2802) allow prior ID testimony by identifier and third parties if identifier testifies and is cross‑examined | Denied; Court held statutory evidence rule permits admission through identifier and third parties; overruled earlier contrary precedents |
| Eyewitness‑identification cautionary instruction | Trial court erred by not giving cautionary eyewitness ID instruction sua sponte | No request was made; general credibility instructions were sufficient; cautionary instruction not required absent request | Denied; no plain error—jury instructions adequate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to preserve errors and thus was ineffective | Under Strickland, defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice; underlying claims lack merit so no prejudice | Denied; no prejudice shown because underlying claims rejected |
| Excessive / Eighth Amendment challenge | Life sentence for AB with deadly weapon is grossly excessive | Sentence within statutory range; issue inadequately developed on appeal | Denied; claim waived/inadequately briefed and not shocking to conscience |
| Cumulative error | Multiple errors cumulatively deprived Davis of a fair trial | No individual errors meriting reversal; thus cumulative error fails | Denied; no reversible cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. State, 395 P.3d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (assault and battery with a deadly weapon does not require intent to kill)
- Hill v. State, 500 P.2d 1075 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972) (extrajudicial identification admissible as substantive evidence)
- Jones v. State, 695 P.2d 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (limits on admission of extrajudicial ID where photograph identity is not shown)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Mitchell v. State, 387 P.3d 934 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (standards for sufficiency of jury instructions and cumulative error analysis)