Harmon v. State
2011 OK CR 6
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Harmon was convicted of First Degree Felony Murder in Oklahoma County for a robbery-murder at the Q & S store on Aug 17, 2004, with a death sentence based on especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel murder, on-imprisonment aggravator, and continuing threat finding.
- A wallet contents and Harmon's palm print tied him to the crime; victim Kamal Choudhury died from gunshot wounds.
- Credit cards stolen from the store were used within minutes and in other towns; Battle identified Harmon on security footage.
- Tyrone Boston provided police with information; Harmon referred to him as a snitch and expressed regret about harming him.
- Witnesses described Harmon's appearance and actions at the scene; Harmon's statements to a co-defendant Battle were recorded on a videotape later admitted at trial.
- Harmon's appeal raised numerous claims of error, including jury selection, admission of evidence, and procedure in the sentencing phase; the Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror voir dire limitations violated due process | Harmon | District court improperly limited voir dire and reprimanded counsel | No error; voir dire was sufficient to ensure fair jury selection. |
| No juror questionnaires or sequestered voir dire violated due process | Harmon | Discretionary use of questionnaires and non-sequestered voir dire adequate | No due process violation; defense cross-examined jurors and used nine peremptory challenges. |
| Eleven jurors excused for cause for views on death penalty proper | Harmon | Witt standard applied; jurors unwilling to consider death penalty excluded | Not error; district court properly excused for cause based on unwillingness to consider all penalties. |
| Use of unadjudicated offenses to prove future dangerousness constitutional | Harmon | Unadjudicated acts admissible to show danger beyond conviction | Constitutional; unadjudicated offenses may be used to show future dangerousness in sentencing. |
| Admission of videotaped Battle exchange harmless | Harmon | Tape should be excluded as fruit of coerced confession | Harmless beyond reasonable doubt; evidence overwhelming and tape cumulative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 223 P.3d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (voir dire; death-penalty framework; discretionary limits permissible)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1985) (juror bias standard in capital cases; deference to trial court)
- Lay v. State, 179 P.3d 615 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (circumstantial evidence and sentencing instructions; circumstantial standard)
- Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence standard; Easlick framework)
- Sanchez v. State, 867 P.2d 1309 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993) (use of unadjudicated offenses in capital sentencing (Paxton lineage))