MACK v. STATE
428 P.3d 326
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- On April 17, 2014 Keith Bernard Mack shot Keondrea Love in the head at an apartment complex after an argument; Love was unarmed and Mack carried a .38 revolver.
- Surveillance video showed Mack walking about three feet behind Love with an arm extended immediately before Love fell from the gunshot.
- Mack claimed he believed Love threatened him and was armed, and that he shot in perceived self-defense.
- A Tulsa County jury convicted Mack of first-degree murder; the court sentenced him to life without parole.
- Mack appealed, raising four propositions: (I) insufficiency of the evidence to disprove self-defense, (II) failure to instruct on "imperfect self-defense," (III) ineffective assistance for not requesting that instruction, and (IV) cumulative error.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Mack's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to disprove self-defense | Mack says evidence (wound location, his perception) supports a reasonable belief Love was armed and imminent threat existed | Surveillance and eyewitness evidence showed Mack followed and shot Love from behind; jurors could reject self-defense | Affirmed — sufficient evidence supports conviction and rejection of self-defense |
| Whether court erred by not sua sponte instructing on "imperfect self-defense" | Mack argued trial court should have instructed on imperfect self-defense (or a manslaughter analog) | Oklahoma does not recognize imperfect self-defense as a separate doctrine; existing manslaughter instructions cover mitigating scenarios | Affirmed — no duty to give instruction on a non‑existent separate doctrine |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting imperfect self-defense instruction | Mack contends counsel should have requested the instruction | There is no recognized imperfect self-defense instruction in Oklahoma; failure to request one cannot be prejudicial | Affirmed — no ineffective assistance shown |
| Whether cumulative errors denied a fair trial | Mack argued cumulative effect of alleged errors required reversal | No individual errors were found; therefore no cumulative error exists | Affirmed — no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 268 P.3d 86 (2011) (self-defense standards and manslaughter instruction guidance)
- Robinson v. State, 255 P.3d 425 (2011) (State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (Jackson sufficiency standard applied)
- McHam v. State, 126 P.3d 662 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (plain error review of jury instructions)
- Wood v. State, 486 P.2d 750 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (discussion of manslaughter where self-defense mitigates but does not excuse)
- Walton v. State, 744 P.2d 977 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (overruling prior inflexible instruction rule)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)