NOLEN v. STATE
485 P.3d 829
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background:
- On Sept. 25, 2014 Alton Nolen entered Vaughn Foods with a concealed knife, fatally attacked coworker Colleen Hufford (beheading) and wounded others; he later stated religious/racial motives.
- Charged with first‑degree murder (death eligible) and multiple assault counts; State alleged four statutory aggravators and sought death.
- Nolen sought to plead guilty and asked for death; defense pursued Atkins (intellectual disability) and competency defenses prompting multiple hearings and an Atkins trial.
- Jury in the Atkins proceeding found Nolen not intellectually disabled; a jury at trial found all aggravators and imposed death; other counts received lengthy consecutive terms.
- Trial court held multiple competency hearings (re: intellectual disability and mental illness) and found Nolen competent; defense raised numerous trial errors on appeal.
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed judgment and sentence, rejecting challenges to Atkins finding, competency rulings, voir dire limitations, photo evidence, aggravators, prosecutorial conduct, and cumulative error.
Issues:
| Issue | Nolen's Argument (Plaintiff) | State's Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atkins / intellectual disability eligibility for death | IQ ~69 and expert testimony show ID; jury verdict unsupported | IQ test flaws, scoring/admin errors, lack of significant adaptive deficits and no proven onset before 18 | Jury finding of no ID upheld; evidence viewed in State's favor supports verdict |
| Competency to stand trial (ID & mental illness) | Incompetent to assist due to ID and/or severe mental illness; multiple experts said impaired | Experts for State found he understood charges and could assist; noncooperation was volitional; no severe mental illness preventing competence | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Nolen competent for trial |
| Competency to assist on appeal | Appellate counsel requested evidentiary hearing; Nolen cannot assist his appeal | No authority to extend present‑competency requirement to appellate participation (Fisher) | Denied; no evidentiary hearing required for appellate competency |
| For‑cause juror strikes & voir dire limits | Several venirepersons were biased re: penalties/insanity and voir dire was unreasonably restricted | Trial court properly exercised discretion, voir dire adequate, counsel preserved objections by using peremptories | Denied; no abuse of discretion in refusing cause strikes or single voir dire restriction |
| Admission of crime‑scene and pre‑mortem photos | Photographs were gruesome, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial | Photos were relevant to injuries, corroboration, and statutes permit an appropriate in‑life photo; probative > prejudice | Admission proper; trial court did not abuse discretion; pre‑mortem photo allowed under statute |
| Constitutionality of aggravators / prosecutorial misconduct / cumulative error | Aggravating circumstances vague/fail to narrow death eligibility; prosecutor appealed to sympathy and denigrated defense | Aggravators previously validated; prosecutor’s argument within permissible range and photos were admissible; no prejudicial cumulative error | Aggravators constitutional as instructed; no plain or reversible prosecutorial error; cumulative error claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled offenders)
- Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (States must follow current medical standards and account for test SEM in Atkins claims)
- Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (States may not rely on outdated clinical factors in ID determinations)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (benchmark standard for competency to stand trial)
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (due process constraints on competency determinations)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (standard for excluding jurors for cause in capital cases)
- Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (deference to trial court's demeanor assessments on juror bias)
- Eizember v. State, 164 P.3d 208 (Okla. Crim. App.) (preservation/use of peremptory to cure a denied for‑cause challenge)
- Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834 (Okla. Crim. App.) (admissibility and balancing of gruesome evidence)
- Murphy v. State, 54 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App.) (Oklahoma's pre‑statutory framework for Atkins determinations)