MITCHELL v. STATE
2018 OK CR 24
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Early morning May 4, 2015: John Columbus found shot to death in his car after driving to buy marijuana; crash into a tree discovered by a citizen.
- Prosecution theory: Ramie Brown and Austin Olinger planned to rob Columbus; Brown, Olinger, Immanuel Mitchell, Cody Taylor, and Kiwane Hobia participated; Mitchell allegedly pointed a gun and shot Columbus during the robbery.
- Co-conspirators Brown and Taylor testified against Mitchell; other evidence included recovered firearms/holster, marijuana, and inculpatory text/call logs linking Mitchell to the plan and the scene.
- Mitchell was convicted by jury of First Degree Felony Murder (felony murder during armed robbery) and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon; sentenced to life plus eight years consecutive.
- On appeal Mitchell raised multiple claims (failure to hold Harjo hearing, accomplice corroboration and sufficiency, instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, juror bias/misconduct, evidentiary rulings, ineffective assistance, cumulative error).
- Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions in full.
Issues
| Issue | Mitchell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to hold Harjo in-camera hearing for co-conspirator statements | Trial court should have held Harjo hearing before admitting co-conspirator testimony/statements | Harjo applies to out-of-court statements; in-court testimony of co-conspirator is admissible and not subject to Harjo; no error | No plain error: Harjo hearing not required for in-court testimony; admission proper |
| Accomplice corroboration and sufficiency of evidence | Convictions rest on uncorroborated accomplice/co-conspirator testimony so insufficient under 22 O.S. § 742 | Co-conspirator out-of-court statements and other evidence (texts, guns, holster, flight, marijuana) corroborate testimony; suffices for both conspiracy and felony murder | Overruled prior misreading of Pink; accomplice/co-conspirator testimony requires corroboration; record contains sufficient corroboration and evidence; convictions affirmed |
| Jury instruction (OUJI-CR No.1‑8A) alleged burden-shifting | Instruction implying attorneys must present evidence impermissibly shifts burden to defendant | Instruction, read with other instructions (presumption of innocence, State burden), would not be read as shifting burden | No plain error: instructions as a whole correctly stated law; no burden shift |
| Prosecutorial misconduct/juror bias/jury selection | Prosecutor misstated parole eligibility during voir dire; court failed to remove biased prospective jurors; panel was tainted; misconduct in argument | Statements consistent with statute re: parole eligibility; no juror who served was removable for cause; prosecutor’s comments within bounds of advocacy | No plain error: no prejudice shown; statements lawful; no juror who served was disqualified; no misconduct warranting reversal |
| Evidentiary rulings (cell phone logs, texts) | Admission of call/text logs was improper and prejudicial | Logs were highly probative, corroborated conspiracy and Mitchell’s participation; probative value outweighed any prejudice | No plain error: exhibits admissible and properly weighed under relevancy/prejudice rules |
| Ineffective assistance / cumulative error | Counsel’s failure to object to above errors was deficient and prejudicial | Under Strickland, no underlying error occurred, so no deficiency or prejudice shown | Denied: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; cumulative error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Harjo v. State, 797 P.2d 338 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990) (Harjo hearing requirement for co-conspirator out-of-court statements)
- Hackney v. State, 874 P.2d 810 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (in‑court co-conspirator testimony is not hearsay and independent corroboration is not required for admissibility)
- Pink v. State, 104 P.3d 584 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (discussed and partially overruled here as to corroboration of accomplice/co-conspirator testimony)
- Coddington v. State, 142 P.3d 437 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (due process focuses on fairness of jury that actually sits)
- Florez v. State, 239 P.3d 156 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (parole‑eligibility statements by prosecutor)