450 P.3d 933
Okla. Crim. App.2019Background
- Donnie Lee Harris was convicted of first-degree felony murder for dousing his girlfriend, Kristi Ferguson, with gasoline and setting her on fire; she died weeks later of extensive burns and inhalation injury.
- Eyewitness statements (victim shortly after the fire) and Harris's inconsistent admissions/behavior (reek of gasoline, lighter in pocket, burns to his hand, statements like "I know") were central to the State's case.
- Physical evidence (fragments of a Crown Royal bottle and clothing) tested positive for ignitable fluid but was later lost; photographs were stipulated and used at trial.
- Harris's retained fire expert (David Smith) became suddenly unavailable at trial; defense used his pretrial report but did not present live expert testimony.
- Jury convicted, found two aggravators (especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; and creating a great risk of death to more than one person), and recommended death; Harris appealed raising multiple claims including lost/missing record items, denial of expert testimony, Brady/non-disclosure about the fire investigator, evidentiary rulings, jury instruction omissions, and ineffective assistance claims.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and death sentence, denying relief on all propositions and rejecting demands for a new trial or evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Harris' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completeness of appellate record / missing transcript exhibits | Missing motion hearing transcript and other reporter omissions deprived Harris of meaningful review | Record was sufficiently complete; parties had stipulated to photographic substitutes; no prejudice shown | No relief; appellant failed to show prejudice and Court deemed record adequate |
| Denial of mistrial/continuance for unavailable defense expert | Trial court should have continued or granted mistrial so expert Smith could testify in person (or remotely) | Defense never formally requested a continuance or showed timing/what the witness would prove; alternatives were possible; Smith's report was cumulative | Denied; court did not abuse discretion and absence of live testimony was not materially prejudicial |
| Failure to preserve physical evidence (due process) | Lost OSBI-tested evidence was potentially exculpatory; prejudiced defense | Evidence had no apparent exculpatory value at time of loss; defense had stipulated to photos and never sought testing; no bad faith by State | Denied; Trombetta/Youngblood standards not met; no showing of apparent exculpatory value or bad faith |
| Brady/non-disclosure re: investigator Rust's personnel history | Prosecutor withheld impeachment material about Rust that would have undermined his credibility | Much of the information arose post-trial or was cumulative; defense already impeached Rust at trial; no reasonable probability outcome would differ | Denied; nondisclosed info not material enough to undermine confidence in verdict (no Brady violation) |
| Admission of other-acts and hearsay (prior threats, protective order) | Prior acts/statements were prejudicial and some testimony was hearsay | Statements showed relationship context, motive, intent, absence of accident; many statements were admissions or non-hearsay | Denied; evidence was relevant and admissible for context; hearsay claims reviewed for plain error and rejected |
| Omitted jury instruction on non-unanimous mitigation (OUJI-CR 4-78) | Missing written instruction in packet prevented jurors from properly considering mitigating evidence | Instruction was read to jury, voir dire covered the concept, and unanimity for mitigators is not required | Denied; omission (if any) was not prejudicial and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Compulsory Process protects defendant's ability to present witnesses)
- Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (trial procedure and sanctions for discovery abuses; limits on compulsory process)
- Valenzuela-Bernal v. United States, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (prosecutorial obligation and materiality when government alienates potential witnesses)
- Trombetta v. California, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (State must preserve evidence with apparent exculpatory value)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (no due-process relief absent bad faith for loss of potentially useful evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose materially favorable evidence including impeachment)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality standard for undisclosed impeachment evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cleary v. State, 942 P.2d 736 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (omitted written jury instruction in capital case can be harmless where instruction was read and other instructions cover the point)