JACKSON v. STATE
2016 OK CR 5
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- Jermaine Jackson was convicted by a Tulsa County jury of two counts of first‑degree malice aforethought murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms with parole eligibility after serving 85% of each sentence.
- Count II alleged first‑degree murder (malice or felony murder) for the killing of Thomas Thorsson; the jury received an instruction on transferred intent.
- Jackson did not object at trial to the Information’s sufficiency or to the transferred‑intent jury instruction, so appellate review is limited to plain error and an ineffective‑assistance claim.
- Jackson argued on appeal that the State failed to charge transferred intent as an alternative theory for Count II, denying him fair notice and prompting plain error in the jury instruction.
- The State and the court treated transferred intent as a factual theory addressing the mens rea element (intent to kill "another human being"), not a distinct crime requiring separate charging.
- The court affirmed the convictions, holding transferred intent was properly applied and counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a meritless instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether instructing on transferred intent for Count II was plain error | Jackson: Transferred intent is an uncharged alternative theory; Information lacked notice; jury instruction deprived him of fair notice | State: Transferred intent pertains to mens rea; statute’s language (intent to kill "another human being") gives notice; doctrine is well established | No plain error — instruction proper; transferred intent is a factual theory of mens rea, not a separate crime |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the transferred‑intent instruction | Jackson: Counsel should have objected to the allegedly improper instruction | State: Objection would be meritless; failure to raise a meritless claim is not deficient | No ineffective assistance — counsel not deficient and no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Short v. State, 980 P.2d 1081 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (transferred intent doctrine discussed; failure to object limits review to plain error)
- Lambert v. State, 888 P.2d 494 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (distinguishes charging a separate legal theory like felony murder from a factual theory)
- Fields v. State, 923 P.2d 624 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (two‑prong test for Information sufficiency: whether defendant was misled and whether double jeopardy risk exists)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005) (transferred intent does not implicate fair‑notice concerns where statute proscribes the defendant’s contemplated conduct)
- Slaughter v. State, 950 P.2d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997) (aiding and abetting as alternative factual theory versus different legal theory)
- Logan v. State, 293 P.3d 969 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (omission of meritless claim is not deficient performance)
- Levering v. State, 315 P.3d 392 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (plain error standard explained)