MACK v. STATE
2018 OK CR 30
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- On April 17, 2014, Keith Bernard Mack shot and killed Keondrea Love in the head after an argument; surveillance video showed Mack trailing about three feet behind Love with an outstretched arm before Love fell.
- Mack carried a .38 revolver habitually; Love was unarmed.
- Mack claimed he shot believing Love had a gun and posed an imminent threat (self-defense).
- Mack was tried by jury in Tulsa County, convicted of First Degree Murder, and sentenced to life without parole.
- Mack appealed raising four propositions: sufficiency of evidence re: self-defense, failure to instruct on "imperfect self-defense," ineffective assistance for not requesting such an instruction, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that defendant was not acting in self-defense | Mack: evidence (wound trajectory, his belief Love was armed) supports reasonable doubt | State: video and witness show defendant followed and shot Love from behind; no reasonable belief of imminent threat | Court: Evidence sufficient for jury to reject self-defense; conviction affirmed |
| Failure to sua sponte instruct on "imperfect self-defense" | Mack: trial court should have given imperfect self-defense instruction to mitigate to manslaughter | State: no recognized separate doctrine/instruction in Oklahoma; manslaughter instructions cover any mitigation | Court: Oklahoma does not recognize imperfect self-defense as a separate defense; no plain error; claim denied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting imperfect self-defense instruction | Mack: counsel deficient for not requesting such an instruction | State: no such instruction exists; counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to request a nonrecognition doctrine | Court: No prejudice because imperfect self-defense is not a recognized legal doctrine; claim denied |
| Cumulative error from alleged trial errors | Mack: multiple errors cumulatively denied fair trial | State: there were no errors to accumulate | Court: No errors found in prior propositions; cumulative-error claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 268 P.3d 86 (2011) (self-defense standards and discussion of manslaughter instruction when self-defense claim is "imperfect")
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part effective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (sufficiency review standard applied in state cases)
- McHam v. State, 126 P.3d 662 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (plain-error review of jury instructions)
- Walton v. State, 744 P.2d 977 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (overruling prior rule requiring manslaughter instructions whenever self-defense instructions given)
- Wood v. State, 486 P.2d 750 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (discussion of manslaughter as closely akin to imperfect self-defense)