PULLEN v. STATE
2016 OK CR 18
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Ashley Reed Pullen was convicted by a jury in Tulsa County of First Degree Rape by Narcotic or Anesthetic Agent (21 O.S. § 1111(A)(4)); jury recommended life with possibility of parole and the court sentenced accordingly.
- Prosecution presented testimony from four other women (M.W., C.S., T.B., L.P.) describing highly similar incidents in which they were lured to Pullen’s apartment, given vodka shots, blacked out, and later discovered they had been sexually assaulted; the court admitted these as propensity/other‑sex‑offense evidence under 12 O.S. § 2413.
- The charged victim (K.S.) testified she was lured to Pullen’s apartment, drank shots, blacked out, and later realized she had been raped; she testified at trial in detail.
- A witness, Shandi Clouse, testified that K.S. told her she had been raped about 12 hours after the incident; defense objected to this hearsay as not an excited‑utterance under 12 O.S. § 2803(2).
- Defense raised insufficiency of identity evidence, challenged admission of propensity evidence and the hearsay statement, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing; also argued the life sentence was excessive.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence, finding the propensity evidence admissible, sufficiency of evidence adequate, the hearsay admission erroneous but harmless, no prosecutorial misconduct requiring relief, and the sentence not shocking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pullen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other‑sex‑offense / propensity evidence | Admission under §2413 violated evidence rules and denied fair trial | Evidence met §2413 standards: similar modus operandi, identity and lack of mistake; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; no plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity and rape by GHB/GBL | Evidence insufficient to prove Pullen was the rapist; victim did not see the act | Circumstantial and propensity evidence, plus victim testimony, permit reasonable inference of identity and drugging | Affirmed: evidence sufficient under Jackson standard |
| Admission of hearsay (K.S. told sister she’d been raped ~12 hrs later) | Statement inadmissible as excited utterance; prejudicial | Trial court admitted as excited utterance; State relied on victim’s in‑court testimony to cure any error | Court: admission was abuse of discretion but harmless because K.S. testified in detail at trial |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (invoking sympathy / sentencing argument) | Closing comments appealed as improper and prejudicial | Arguments were within permissible latitude; court sustained objections when appropriate | Affirmed: remarks did not render trial fundamentally unfair; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Horn v. State, 204 P.3d 777 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (factors for admissibility of other‑sex‑offense evidence)
- Welch v. State, 2 P.3d 356 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000) (modus operandi/signature evidence supports identity)
- Taylor v. State, 248 P.3d 362 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (limits of excited‑utterance exception; contemporaneity and reliability)
- Malone v. State, 293 P.3d 198 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (plain‑error standard applied to preserved/unpreserved evidentiary claims)
- Bosse v. State, 360 P.3d 1203 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015) (review of cumulative/prosecutorial‑misconduct claims and harmless error analysis)