NELOMS v. State
2012 OK CR 7
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Neloms was convicted by jury of First Degree Rape (Count 1) and First Degree Rape by Instrumentation (Count 2) in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with two life sentences served consecutively.
- The State introduced Hofmann burglary evidence from Norman, Oklahoma, as proof of identity/common scheme; DNA from Hofmann scene matched Neloms.
- B.N., a four-year-old victim, described the attacker in forensic interviews and identified Neloms in a lineup; she later testified at trial.
- DNA on vaginal swabs and underwear tied Neloms to the victim; a neighbor saw a man with a ponytail fleeing the scene around 3:00 a.m.
- There was a trial-side issue about a redacted police interview that mentioned prior entanglements; jurors were instructed to disregard references to prior legal entanglements.
- The district court corrected a scrivener's error on Count 1’s statute in the judgment and sentence, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Hofmann evidence admissibility | Neloms | State | Error to admit; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Testimony about extent of injuries | Neloms | State | No due process violation; testimony not reversible error |
| Excessive sentence | Neloms | State | No abuse of discretion; life sentences within statutory range |
| Cumulative error | Neloms | State | No cumulative error; only harmless error found |
| Judgment & Sentence error (scrivener's error) | Neloms | State | Remand for nunc pro tunc correction to Count 1 to reflect Rape in the First Degree, 21 O.S.2001, § 1114(A)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. State, 229 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (common scheme/identity; abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility)
- Williams v. State, 188 P.3d 208 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (admissibility of similar acts; identity/common scheme)
- Hall v. State, 650 P.2d 893 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982) (duty to disclose falsity of perjured testimony; due process)
- Bear v. State, 762 P.2d 950 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (mere suggestion of other crime not error unless prejudicial)
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (harmless error standard for evidentiary error)