Pryor v. State
2011 OK CR 18
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Pryor shot and killed Timothy Lannom in Pryor's Tulsa home during an ice storm (December 2007).
- State initially charged Pryor with First Degree Murder and, in the alternative, First Degree Manslaughter; the State dismissed the alternative manslaughter count before jury selection.
- District court instructed the jury that guilt decisions on First Degree Murder or lesser offenses were for the jury, and submitted murder, heat-of-passion manslaughter, and self-defense instructions.
- The district court found insufficient evidence for first degree murder and submitted First Degree Manslaughter as a lesser-related offense under McHam, over defense objection.
- During closing, the State made multiple improper arguments designed to inflame passions and suggest manipulation by Pryor and her attorneys, including personal invocations and appeals to emotions.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the cumulative improper prosecutorial argument, finding Pryor deprived of a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct deprived Pryor of a fair trial | Pryor argues multiple closing statements were improper and inflamed passions. | State contends the comments were fair comment and within closing argument. | Yes; cumulative improper argument deprived fair trial, requiring reversal. |
| Whether the cumulative effect of improper arguments requires reversal despite some objections not being made | Pryor claims the totality of remarks affected verdict. | State contends isolated improper remarks do not require reversal when evidence supports conviction. | Yes; totality of improper argument warranted reversal and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. State, 633 P.2d 757 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981) (arguments beyond evidence improper; inflaming passions forbidden)
- Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) (emotional appeal to convict improper)
- Green v. State, 611 P.2d 262 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980) (prosecutor’s insinuations outside evidence improper)
- Fry v. State, 218 P.2d 643 (Okla. Crim. App. 1950) (limits on prosecutorial rhetoric; no depictions of manipulation without evidence)
- Fulks v. State, 481 P.2d 769 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971) (prosecutor not to introduce facts outside the record to inflame jury)
- McCarty v. State, 765 P.2d 1215 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988) (trial court must keep final argument within proper bounds)