FREDERICK v. STATE
2017 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Darrell Wayne Frederick was convicted by jury of first-degree malice murder, assault with a dangerous weapon (after prior felonies), and domestic assault; jury found three aggravators and recommended death; sentences were consecutive.
- Victim: 85‑year‑old deaf/mute mother found with severe head trauma; identified appellant by sign; died weeks later from blunt force head trauma.
- Events: Argument in kitchen; appellant shoved mother, chased granddaughter Da'Jon Diggs outside with a brick/rock, returned inside; police found mother severely injured; appellant was located the next day with a swollen hand and blood on clothing.
- Trial controversies included jury selection challenges, admission of the victim’s out‑of‑court identification, lay vs. expert testimony about injury causation, refusal to give lesser‑included instructions, and admission of prior convictions/acquitted conduct at sentencing.
- On appeal, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed most claims for plain error (many trial objections were not preserved) and denied relief, affirming convictions and the death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of challenges for cause to specific venirepersons | Court wrongly refused to strike seven jurors for cause, depriving fair jury | Jurors showed no irrevocable bias; defense did not preserve by requesting extra peremptories or identifying who they'd have struck | No abuse of discretion; claim waived for lack of preservation; no plain error found |
| Restricting voir dire hypotheticals (victim = mother) | Defense should probe juror attitudes about matricide-specific hypotheticals | Court may limit repetitive/fact-specific voir dire that tests defense theory rather than impartiality | No abuse of discretion; adequate voir dire on death‑penalty views permitted |
| Batson challenge to prosecution peremptory (R.G.) | Strike was racially motivated; proffered reasons pretextual | Prosecution gave multiple race-neutral reasons (lateness, prior prosecutions, expressed views on death) | Trial court credited race-neutral reasons; no Batson violation found |
| Admission of decedent’s identification (Confrontation Clause) | Statements were testimonial; admission violated Sixth Amendment | Statements were nontestimonial (ongoing emergency) and/or fell within hearsay exceptions | Statements were nontestimonial under Davis/Bryant and admissible; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Hearsay exceptions / reliability of victim’s statements | Statements not within dying declaration and unreliable; admission violated due process | Statements qualified as excited utterance and statements for medical treatment; admissible under state law | Admission proper as excited utterance and medical‑purpose statements; any inconsistencies go to weight, not admissibility |
| Lay witness opinion about injury causation | Police/paramedic testimony speculating on injury source exceeded lay competence and was expert testimony requiring notice | Testimony was lay opinion based on personal observation, not expert medical diagnosis | Admissible as lay opinion under Oklahoma law; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Refusal to give lesser‑included instructions (manslaughter, 2d‑degree) / Beck claim | Failure to instruct on lesser offenses violated due process (Beck) | Defendant consistently maintained innocence (not admitting lesser culpability); no evidence to support lesser offenses | No Beck violation: defendant’s chosen defense of innocence foreclosed lesser‑included instructions; no error |
| Sufficiency of evidence of first‑degree murder | State failed to exclude fall hypothesis and to prove malice beyond reasonable doubt | Medical and circumstantial evidence supported non‑fall blunt‑force injuries and malice; defendant’s conduct and flight consistent with guilt | Viewed favorably to prosecution, evidence sufficient to support first‑degree murder conviction |
| Use of prior convictions / acquitted conduct at sentencing (aggravators) | Some prior convictions (burglary) lacked violent element; juvenile adjudication and acquitted conduct should not support aggravators or violate Eighth/Double‑jeopardy | Prior robbery with firearm and other violent acts supported prior‑violent and continuing‑threat aggravators; acquitted conduct admissible for sentencing | Court found burglary insufficient for prior‑violent element but admissible for continuing‑threat; juvenile conviction and acquitted conduct admissible; aggravators upheld overall |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error | Multiple improper remarks and appeals‑stage errors deprived fair trial | Remarks were within allowable argument or not prejudicial given strong evidence; objections largely not preserved | No plain error; comments reviewed in context and found not to require reversal |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to file motions, investigate alternative explanations (gout, hand injury), impeach witnesses, and preserve jury‑selection claims | Strategic choices (openings, witness selection, limited impeachment) were reasonable; appellant failed to show prejudice under Strickland | Strickland standard not met; no reasonable probability outcome would differ; no evidentiary remand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements in ongoing emergencies)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (objective‑circumstances approach to ongoing emergency analysis)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (standard for excusing jurors for cause based on capital punishment views)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (juror who will automatically vote death must be excluded)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (Confrontation Clause/forfeiture plus discussion of dying statements)
- Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (lesser‑included instruction and capital sentencing due process principle)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (Eighth Amendment—juvenile death penalty precedent cited in juvenile‑conviction argument)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (admission of acquitted conduct in sentencing proceedings)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (Fourth Amendment considerations for compelled bodily evidence)