Grissom v. State
2011 OK CR 3
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Grissom was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, grand larceny, and possessing a firearm after former felony conviction; the jury found three aggravators and sentenced him to death, life, 25 years, and 40 years respectively.
- The murders occurred during a home invasion in Blaine County, Oklahoma, involving the victim Dreu Kopf, her guest Amber Matthews, and a baby; Grissom and Jessie Johns executed a planned burglary with a black powder .44 pistol and a .22 derringer, then fled.
- Investigators recovered Grissom’s firearms and gloves, and DNA from Kopf’s blood matched Grissom; a videotaped statement and testimony corroborated his role in the crimes.
- A juror was later alleged to have failed to disclose prior arrests during voir dire; an evidentiary hearing was held and incorporated into the record on appeal.
- Grissom admitted guilt to several charges through counsel during trial; the court instructed on voluntary intoxication and declined to bifurcate sentencing as Chapple requires.
- The Court denied relief on the ineffective-assistance and most trial-error claims, and modified Count 3 from Grand Larceny to Larceny of a Motor Vehicle, recognizing the motor vehicle-specific statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct and new-trial claim | Grissom argues non-disclosure by a juror requiring new trial | State contends no reversible error and insufficient prejudice | Denied; no reversible prejudice shown |
| Voluntary intoxication and lesser-included offenses | Intoxication evidence warranted lesser-included offenses | Counsel elected sentencing-stage defense; no plain error | Denied; no plain error; no entitlement to lesser offenses |
| Bifurcation and former-conviction enhancements | Failure to bifurcate violated Chapple protections | Admissions during first stage waived bifurcation rights | Denied; no plain error; admissions waived protections |
| Grand larceny vs. larceny of a motor vehicle | Grand larceny statute improper for a motor vehicle | Motor-vehicle larceny statute applies; conviction modified | Count 3 modified to larceny of a motor vehicle; sentence 25 years |
| Victim-impact instruction and prejudice | Uniform victim-impact instruction should have been given | Not plain error given evidence and context | Denied; error harmless under standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez Enriquez v. State, 740 P.2d 1204 (OK Crim. App. 1987) (non-disclosure depriving defense of intelligent peremptory challenges)
- Bass v. State, 733 P.2d 1340 (OK Crim. App. 1987) (prejudice from undisclosed juror relations; right to challenge for cause)
- Tibbetts v. State, 698 P.2d 942 (OK Crim. App. 1985) (relationships to witnesses; need for disclosure in voir dire)
- Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (OK Crim. App. 1983) (attenuated relationship with DA; not prejudice absent evidence of bias)
- Manuel v. State, 541 P.2d 233 (OK Crim. App. 1975) (reliance on candor; disclosure required when interests are known)
- Chapple v. State, 866 P.2d 1213 (OK Crim. App. 1993) (two-stage bifurcation rule for prior convictions as to enhance; preservation of rights)
- Frederick v. State, 37 P.3d 908 (OK Crim. App. 2001) (no intoxication-based lesser-included instruction where insufficient evidence)