280 P.3d 354
Okla. Crim. App.2012Background
- Hinsley was convicted by a judge in Murray County District Court of Count I, Rape in the First Degree, and Count II, Lewd Molestation, CF-2001-198.
- Sentences were twenty years on each count, to run concurrently, with 85% must be served before parole eligibility.
- Hinsley timely appealed raising six propositions of error.
- The appellate court found Proposition I meritorious and reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- A concurrence by Judge Lumpkin concurred in result but noted potential issues with the record of waiver and consent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Hinsley's jury-waiver knowing and intelligent given an inadequate waiver record? | Hinsley argues waiver lacks a proper, explicit record. | State contends waiver may be inferred from proceedings. | Waiver record is insufficient to show knowing and intelligent waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valega v. City of Oklahoma City, 755 P.2d 118 (1988 OK Crim) (record must show competent, knowing waiver of right)
- Long v. State, 74 P.3d 105 (Okla. Crim. 2003) (waiver inquiry required; record must show explicit questioning)
- Bench v. State, 743 P.2d 140 (Okla. Crim. 1987) (record must reflect valid waiver of rights)
- Kerr v. State, 738 P.2d 1370 (Okla. Crim. 1987) (necessity of inquiring about waiver in open court)
- Hayes v. State, 541 P.2d 210 (Okla. Crim. 1975) (record of waiver impedes collateral attacks)
- U.S. v. Robertson, 45 F.3d 1423 (10th Cir. 1995) (importance of informing defendant about right and consequences of waiving)