Postelle v. State
2011 OK CR 30
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Postelle was convicted by jury in CF-2005-4759 of four counts of First Degree Murder and one count of Conspiracy; death penalty on counts 1 and 4, life without parole on counts 2 and 3, and 10 years on conspiracy, all sentenced consecutively by Judge Elliott; conviction upheld on appeal.
- Memorial Day 2005 quadruple murder occurred outside Swindle’s trailer; minivan seen leaving scene; multiple witnesses connected Gilbert and David Postelle to the events and to the weapons used.
- Accomplice testimony was central to the State’s case; Byus, Wilder, Sanders, and Baumann testified, with the defense arguing their testimony required corroboration.
- Evidence showed Wilder’s MAK-90 and an SKS rifle were used; Byus’s DNA was found on a projectile; various witnesses connected the Postelles to the van and to conversations about concealing evidence.
- The defense urged multiple trial challenges, including lack of corroboration for accomplice testimony, erroneous jury instructions, and various evidentiary issues; the Court conducted a comprehensive review and affirmed the judgments and sentences.
- The opinion discusses constitutional considerations of the death penalty, including proportionality review and Lockett-based mitigating evidence, ultimately affirming the death sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of accomplice corroboration | Postelle argues Byus/Wilder testimony alone implicates him | State contends independent corroboration exists via Baumann, Sanders | Sufficient corroboration supported convictions |
| Accomplice instructions requirement | District court failed to instruct on accomplice corroboration | Trial court properly refused as evidence supported conviction without it | Error, if any, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversal on this ground |
| Identification of David Postelle | Bartender’s tainted line-up identification violated due process | Identification error harmless given strong other evidence | No reversible error; identification harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Jury selection and voir dire methods | Struck-juror method and lack of questionnaires harmed due process | Discretionary procedures properly applied; no due process violation | Voir dire method and lack of questionnaires not reversible error |
| Constitutionality of death penalty scheme/proportionality | Scheme unconstitutional for lack of proportionality review; arbitrary results | No constitutional requirement for comparative proportionality review; safeguards exist | Death sentences constitutional; proportionality review not required; proper safeguards observed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pink v. State, 104 P.3d 584 (Okla. 2004) (accomplice corroboration requirement)
- Glossip v. State, 157 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2007) (accomplice corroboration and evidentiary standards)
- Logsdon v. State, 231 P.3d 1156 (Okla. 2010) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Harmon v. State, 248 P.3d 929 (Okla. 2011) (voir dire and capital jury selection practices; plain error framework)
- Sanches v. State, 223 P.3d 997 (Okla. 2009) (due process in capital sentencing; juror qualification)
- Cuesta-Rodrigues v. State, 241 P.3d 238 (Okla. 2010) (juror voir dire and use of questionnaires; discretion of trial court)
- Harris v. State, 164 P.3d 1103 (Okla. 2007) (mitigating evidence under Lockett; co-defendant consideration)
- Coddington v. State, 142 P.3d 437 (Okla. 2006) (mitigating evidence and videotaped material; voir dire)