FREDERICK v. STATE
2017 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Darrell Wayne Frederick was convicted by a jury of first-degree malice murder, assault with a dangerous weapon (after prior felonies), and domestic assault; jury recommended death and the trial court imposed consecutive sentences.
- Victim was Frederick's 85-year-old deaf-mute mother, found with severe head trauma; she identified her attacker at the scene by sign; she later died from blunt force head trauma.
- Key physical evidence: severe cranial fractures/subdural hematoma, bruising, blood on defendant and in his bedroom, swollen/injured right hand on defendant when located the next day.
- At sentencing the jury found three aggravators: prior violent felony, especially heinous/atrocious/cruel, and continuing threat to society; prosecution introduced prior convictions and unadjudicated/acquitted conduct to support aggravators.
- On appeal Frederick raised multiple claims (jury selection and Batson, Confrontation/hearsay, evidentiary rulings, omission of lesser-included instructions, sufficiency of murder evidence, admissibility of prior offenses/acquitted conduct, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, cumulative error); the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Frederick) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of challenges for cause / voir dire limits | Trial court refused to remove several prospective jurors for cause and limited defense-specific hypotheticals about matricide, denying a fair jury | Trial court allowed broad questioning on capital views; peremptory use cured most issues and voir dire limitations were within discretion | No abuse of discretion; no plain error where most challenged jurors were removed by peremptories or qualified and voir dire sufficed |
| Batson challenge to State's peremptory of R.G. | Strike was racially motivated; State's proffered reasons were pretextual | Proffered neutral reasons (absence, demeanor, past prosecution, family criminal history, views on death penalty) supported by record | Trial court did not err in accepting race-neutral reasons; Batson not shown |
| Admission of victim's out-of-court ID (Confrontation Clause / hearsay) | Statements were testimonial and admission violated Crawford; also unreliable and not within hearsay exceptions | Statements were nontestimonial (ongoing emergency) and admissible as excited utterance / statements for medical treatment | Statements were nontestimonial under Davis/Bryant and admissible under excited-utterance and medical-treatment exceptions; no plain error |
| Failure to instruct on lesser-included offenses (Beck claim) | Beck requires lesser-included instruction when evidence would support it; omission here rendered sentencing choice "all-or-nothing" | Defendant asserted innocence throughout (not admitting killing), so lesser-included instructions were not warranted; Beck applies only where evidence supports a rational verdict for lesser offense | Court held defendant's chosen defense of innocence foreclosed lesser-offense instructions; Beck not violated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for malice aforethought (first-degree murder) | Evidence insufficient to show intent to kill; injuries could be from a fall; experts could not rule out fall conclusively | Medical and lay testimony, injury pattern, circumstances and defendant's conduct supported inference of malice/premeditation | Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to State; jury could infer malice beyond reasonable doubt |
| Use of prior convictions / acquitted conduct at sentencing (aggravators) | Some prior convictions did not show use/threat of violence; juvenile adjudication and acquittal should not be used to support aggravators or Eighth Amendment concerns | Prior robbery with firearm and other violent acts supported prior-violent and continuing-threat aggravators; acquitted conduct admissible for sentencing | Brewer hearing omission for burglary was error but harmless because burglary still admissible for continuing-threat; juvenile adjudication and acquitted conduct admissible; aggravators supported |
| Lay witnesses and opinion testimony (police/paramedic) | Officers and others gave improper expert/ speculative opinions about injury causation | Lay-opinion testimony based on personal observations permitted under state rule; experts testified as to traumatic pattern | Testimony properly admitted as lay opinion (non-expert) or expert where qualified; no abuse of discretion |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error | Prosecutor misstated evidence, denigrated mitigation, urged victim sympathy, and misdescribed weighing; errors cumulative and prejudicial | Comments were reasonable inferences, within broad latitude, and did not overcome strong evidence | Isolated improper remarks found; considered collectively they did not deprive defendant of fair trial or affect sentence |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Multiple alleged failures (pretrial motions, investigation, impeachment, witnesses promised but not called, peremptory strategy) prejudiced defense | Trial strategy decisions were reasonable; no clear-and-convincing evidence to justify remand/evidentiary hearing; no Strickland prejudice shown | Strickland not satisfied; court denied evidentiary hearing and found counsel effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (standard for excusing jurors for cause in capital cases)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (juror irrevocably committed to death must be excused)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rule)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial v. nontestimonial statements; ongoing emergency test)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary-purpose test in emergency contexts)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture and dying declarations discussed)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (lesser-included instructions in capital cases)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death-penalty proportionality principle cited re: juvenile convictions)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (unadjudicated or acquitted conduct admissible in sentencing)
- Eizember v. State, 164 P.3d 208 (Okl. Ct. Crim. App. standard on preserving juror-for-cause claims and voir dire)