PARKER v. STATE
2021 OK CR 17
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2021Background
- On July 22, 2018 Michael Gary Parker shot and killed John Wilson outside an after-hours club in Tulsa; Parker was charged with first‑degree murder but the jury convicted him of first‑degree manslaughter.
- Parker claimed he acted in self‑defense; prosecution argued he intentionally sought out and shot Wilson after an earlier altercation.
- Jury unanimously found guilt but deadlocked on punishment; trial judge sentenced Parker to 20 years (17 years executed, 3 suspended).
- Trial disputes included admissibility of Parker's custodial confession, jury instructions (submission of manslaughter), Batson challenge to peremptory strikes, prosecutorial argument, and ineffective assistance claims.
- After McGirt, Parker asserted lack of state jurisdiction because he is a descendant of Cherokee Freedmen; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found Parker failed to prove tribal/federal recognition at time of offense.
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence and denied an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance; it adopted the district court's conclusion that Parker was not an "Indian" for MCA jurisdiction purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Parker's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / self‑defense | Evidence insufficient because State failed to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Eyewitnesses contradicted self‑defense; belief in danger was unreasonable | Affirmed conviction; evidence sufficient to disprove self‑defense |
| Jury instruction (manslaughter) | Court erred in giving first‑degree manslaughter as lesser included over objection; no heat‑of‑passion evidence | Manslaughter instruction supported as reasonable view where self‑defense claim fails and passion/fear could exist | No abuse of discretion; instruction permissible |
| Batson challenge | Prosecutor struck all three African‑American males peremptorily without race‑neutral reasons | Prosecutor gave race‑neutral reasons (low trust in police, prior contacts); trial judge credited demeanor | No clear error; race‑neutral reasons accepted; Batson fails |
| Motion to suppress confession | Detective did not honor invocation of counsel and coerced confession by threatening to arrest girlfriend | Detective stopped after invocation, later returned after defendant reinitiated contact and obtained valid Miranda waiver | Denial of suppression affirmed; court found defendant reinitiated and waiver voluntary |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Improper burden shifts, inflammatory language, and arguing Parker tailored testimony | Objections sustained during trial, judge admonished jury, accurate burden instructions; wide latitude in argument | No reversible misconduct; curative rulings and instructions remedied any error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to renew suppression motion and declined to call cousin witness; seeks evidentiary hearing | Failure to renew suppression harmless because motion lacked merit; decision not to call cousin was reasonable trial strategy | No Strickland relief; no evidentiary hearing granted |
| Jurisdiction (McGirt / Indian status) | Parker (Cherokee Freedmen descendant) argues crime occurred in Indian Country; state lacks jurisdiction | Parker failed to prove he had "some Indian blood" and—critical—was recognized as Indian by tribe or federal government at time of offense | Affirmed: district court found no prima facie recognition; Rogers/Diaz test not satisfied; Oklahoma retains jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prosecutor may not use peremptory strikes based on race)
- Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (trial judge evaluates prosecutor credibility and demeanor in Batson inquiry)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (questioning must cease after invocation of right to counsel)
- Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (police may not resume interrogation absent attorney or reinitiation by suspect)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (reservation status can affect state criminal jurisdiction under Major Crimes Act)
- United States v. Diaz, 679 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. two‑part test for Indian status: some blood and tribal/federal recognition)
- United States v. Prentiss, 273 F.3d 1277 (application of Indian‑status jurisdictional test)
- St. Cloud v. United States, 702 F. Supp. 1456 (Indian blood alone insufficient; recognition required)
- United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (lack of formal enrollment does not preclude Indian status, but recognition evidence remains necessary)