Dawkins v. State
2011 OK CR 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Dawkins was convicted by a jury of First Degree Manslaughter (Count I) and Unlawful Possession of a Sawed-Off Shotgun (Count II) after a prior felony conviction in Hughes County (CF-2008-20).
- He shot Brandon Sanford with a sawed-off shotgun at the victims’ residence following domestic-related tension involving Shonna Jennings.
- Dawkins admitted the shooting but claimed self-defense; he argued the Stand Your Ground statute immunized him from prosecution.
- The trial court instructed self-defense with uniform jury instructions; the case involved contested issues about reasonable belief and defense.
- Dawkins argued that the Stand Your Ground provisions did not apply because he was engaged in unlawful activity (possessing an illegal weapon) at the time.
- The court addressed seven propositions of error raised on appeal, including Stand Your Ground applicability, jury instruction accuracy, self-defense, flight instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stand Your Ground immunizes Dawkins from prosecution | Dawkins relies on §1289.25 to claim absolute defense | State contends Dawkins was engaged in unlawful activity (illegal weapon) and not protected | Stand Your Ground does not apply; unlawful activity defeats immunity |
| Whether the jury instruction on §1289.25 was accurate/confusing | Dawkins argues instruction misled jurors about defense | Instruction correctly stated law | Harmless error since Stand Your Ground inapplicable |
| Whether self-defense instructions and related arguments were improper | Prosecutor misled about self-defense and aggressor status | Instructions accurate; arguments within wide latitude | No plain error; no reversible prejudice |
| Whether flight instruction was improper given lack of Dawkins’ testimony | Flight instruction impermissibly framed the defense | Instruction should have been omitted | Harmless error; defense already rejected; no effect on verdict |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct deprived Dawkins of a fair trial | State’s closing comments misstated presumption of innocence | Comments improper but not outcome-determinative | Not reversible error; did not affect verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 972 P.2d 32 (1998 OK CR 67) (interpreted occupancy and stand-your-ground scope; legislature amended law to exclude unlawful activity)
- Ceasar v. State, 237 P.3d 792 (2010 OK CR 15) (statute did not distinguish categories of unlawful activity for misdemeanor manslaughter analogy)
- Wade v. State, 581 P.2d 914 (1978 OK CR 77) (felony-murder nexus principle applying to related crimes)
- Malaske v. State, 89 P.3d 1118 (2004 OK CR 18) (nexus concept in felony-related offenses)