MASON v. STATE
433 P.3d 1264
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Victim Burney Bounds was found bound and killed by traumatic asphyxia in his home on Oct. 15, 2006; the house showed signs of disturbance and duct tape used to bind the victim.
- Physical evidence from the scene included latent fingerprints on duct tape and a hair that produced a partial DNA profile. Four latent prints matched Mason; the hair DNA could not exclude Mason (random-match probability ~1 in 4.66 million).
- Multiple witnesses placed a man fitting Mason’s description with Bounds and near Bounds’ Subaru on Oct. 14–15, 2006; an abandoned Subaru was later reported.
- Mason was identified by an eyewitness (Clara Rogers) from a 2015 photo lineup and at trial; Mason gave a recorded interview admitting he rode with an older man in a station wagon around the relevant time and denied harming anyone.
- Mason was tried for first-degree malice aforethought murder; a jury convicted and sentenced him to life without parole. He appealed raising sufficiency of evidence, Miranda suppression, bolstering of ID testimony, failure to give an eyewitness caution instruction, expert opinion testimony, ex post facto challenge to a sentencing enhancement statute, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Mason's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Mason caused the killing | Fingerprint/DNA only show presence; no proof Mason committed the murder or was sole perpetrator | Forensic matches plus eyewitness sightings and Mason’s statement are sufficient in aggregate | Affirmed — evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to State |
| Suppression of interview (Miranda) | Interview at transitional center was custodial and Miranda warnings were required | No custodial interrogation; reasonable person could have ended interview; no restraints or conveyed intent to arrest | Affirmed — no Miranda error under totality of circumstances |
| Bolstering extrajudicial ID with agent testimony | Agent’s testimony about Rogers’ prior ID impermissibly bolstered eyewitness | 12 O.S. §§ 2801–2802 allow extrajudicial ID testimony if declarant testifies and is cross-examined | Affirmed — Agent’s testimony admissible; no plain error |
| Failure to give cautionary eyewitness ID instruction sua sponte | Court should have warned jury about reliability given delay and ID importance | Witness had good opportunity, remained positive, and ID was not seriously undermined | Affirmed — no cautionary instruction required under governing factors |
| Admission of fingerprint expert’s definitive opinion | Expert’s absolute-match language overstated scientific certainty and invaded jury province | Fingerprint testimony permissible; Mason didn’t challenge admissibility or cross-examine on scientific critiques | No plain error — testimony admissible and not outcome-determinative |
| Ex post facto challenge to § 701.10-1 sentencing enhancement | Applying 2013 enhancement to 2006 murder increased punishment unlawfully | Statute did not criminalize, increase severity, or lower proof standard for the offense | Denied — no ex post facto violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to renew/sustain objections to statements, bolstering, expert opinion, and enhancement procedure | Alleged failures either were meritless or caused no prejudice given the record | Denied — Strickland prejudice not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. State, 146 P.3d 1141 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Mitchell v. State, 424 P.3d 677 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018) (affirms deference to jury factfinding and reasonable inferences)
- Davis v. State, 419 P.3d 271 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018) (permits third-party testimony about extrajudicial identifications when declarant testifies and is cross-examined)
- Webster v. State, 252 P.3d 259 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (discusses limits of challenging fingerprint individualization absent record development)
- James v. State, 204 P.3d 793 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (ex post facto analysis: retroactive evidentiary changes not necessarily prohibited unless they lower quantum of proof)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governs ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prejudice and performance analysis)