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 (life with possibility of parole). The court later dismissed an alternative First Degree Rape conviction.
- Victim K.S. alleged Pullen lured her to his apartment under a fictitious online pretext, administered GHB/GBL, and had sexual intercourse while she was incapacitated.
- Four other women (M.W., C.S., T.B., L.P.) testified about substantially similar incidents at Pullen’s apartment where they were lured, given vodka shots, blacked out, and later discovered they had been sexually assaulted. The State introduced this as propensity/other-acts evidence under 12 O.S. § 2413.
- A witness (Shandi Clouse) testified that K.S. told her she had been raped about 12 hours after the incident; the trial court admitted this statement over objection.
- Pullen appealed, raising five propositions: (I) erroneous admission of bad-act propensity evidence; (II) insufficient evidence of identity; (III) improper admission of hearsay (K.S.’s statement to her sister); (IV) prosecutorial misconduct in closing; and (V) excessive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pullen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts/propensity evidence | Admission under 12 O.S. §2413 was improper and violated evidence code/due process | Evidence satisfied §2413—similar modus operandi, relevant to identity and absence of mistake; limiting instruction minimized prejudice | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; propensity evidence admissible; no plain error |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove identity | Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove Pullen was K.S.’s assailant beyond reasonable doubt | Circumstantial evidence and similarities with other victims were sufficient to identify Pullen as perpetrator | Affirmed: evidence (including circumstantial and signature-like similarities) sufficient |
| Admission of hearsay (K.S. told sister she was raped ~12 hours later) | Statement inadmissible under hearsay exceptions (not excited utterance) | Trial court admitted under §2803(2); State relied on reliability and timing | Court: admission was abuse of discretion (not an excited utterance) but error was harmless because K.S. testified similarly at trial |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Prosecutor improperly appealed for sympathy and made prejudicial remarks | State: arguments were within permissible latitude; court cured sustained objections | Affirmed: no fundamental unfairness; objections sustained or comments within bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Levering v. State, 315 P.3d 392 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (standards for reviewing admission of evidence)
- Horn v. State, 204 P.3d 777 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (factors for admissibility of other-acts evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 250 P.3d 901 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (other-acts evidence and limiting instruction guidance)
- Taylor v. State, 248 P.3d 362 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (analysis of excited-utterance timing and reliability)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Welch v. State, 2 P.3d 356 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000) (signature-like modus operandi for identity)
- Bosse v. State, 360 P.3d 1203 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015) (plain-error review and harmlessness principles)
- Malone v. State, 293 P.3d 198 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013) (plain error test for unpreserved claims)