Harmon v. State, 2011 WL 310960

Background

Harmon was convicted of First Degree Felony Murder and sentenced to death after aggravating findings of especially heinous, atrocious or cruel conduct, commission of the murder while serving a felony sentence, and continuing threat to society.
Store owner Kamal Choudhury was robbed and shot; victim died next morning, and Harmon's palm print was found on a bloodstained item from the wallet.
Credit cards stolen in the robbery were used multiple times within hours and days after the crime; Harmon and companions were linked to the crime by witness and video.
Witness Jasmine Battle pleaded guilty to a related role; Tyrone Boston provided information to police leading to Harmon's involvement.
During investigation, Harmon made statements calling Boston a “snitch.” A video of Harmon's interview with Battle at the police station was admitted over objection, though the State later conceded admissibility issues.
Harmon challenged numerous trial procedures, including jury selection, admission of evidence, and the use of unadjudicated offenses to prove future dangerousness; the Court affirmatively held the record supports the death sentence and denied relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury selection limitations on defense questions	Harmon was prejudiced by restricted voir dire and a reprimand in front of the jury.	The district court properly limited repetitive or improper questions; defense had broad inquiry into death penalty preferences.	No error; voir dire restrictions were proper.
Use of jury questionnaires and individual voir dire	Lack of questionnaires and sequestered voir dire denied Harmon's due process.	Struck juror method allowed full examination and challenges; questionnaires not required.	No due process violation; methods used were within discretion.
Excusal of jurors for cause based on death penalty views	Eleven jurors were improperly excused for not considering death penalty.	District court properly questioned and excused jurors unable to consider all punishments.	No abuse of discretion; proper cause challenges.
Use of unadjudicated offenses to prove future dangerousness	Unadjudicated offenses violate due process and Ring requires beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof.	Use is permissible in capital sentencing to show future dangerousness; Ring does not require beyond-Beyond for unadjudicated acts.	Permissible; not unconstitutional; evidence supported continuing threat.
Admission of the Battle videotape and related Miranda issues	Tape was tainted by prior interrogation and should have been suppressed.	Tape was not a second interrogation; admissible and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.	Harmless error; admission did not affect verdict.

Key Cases Cited

Sanchez v. State, 223 P.3d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (voir dire discretion; capital-sentencing context)
Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires jurors able to consider penalties; Witt standard deference to trial court)
Jones v. State, 201 P.3d 869 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (struck-jury method; admissibility of for-cause challenges and peremptory use)
Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (circumstantial-evidence standard; Easlick guidance on instructional framework)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (aggravating-facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Paxton v. State, 867 P.2d 1309 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (use of unadjudicated offenses in capital sentencing; reliability justification)
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 241 P.3d 214 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (victim-impact and punishment-scheme considerations; procedural guidance)
Mitchell v. State, 235 P.3d 659 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (waiver and plain-error in post-Lay-type claims; sentencing-law nuances)