Robinson v. State
2011 OK CR 15
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2011Background
- Robinson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with 85% of the sentence served before parole eligibility.
- He appeals, raising four propositions of error.
- Trial used a struck jury method; the court allegedly miscounted peremptory challenges, failing to give Robinson nine challenges.
- Golden v. State held denial of nine peremptory challenges was structural error; Rivera v. Illinois later held state-law error could be harmless and not structural.
- Court ultimately found the peremptory-challenge error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of nine peremptory challenges was harmless error | Robinson argues denial violated due process as structural error. | State contends error was harmless due to good-faith counting mistake and fair trial. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reversal required. |
| Prosecutorial conduct during voir dire | Robinson asserts prosecutorial misconduct affected fairness. | State argues no plain error and discretion lies with trial court on voir dire. | No plain error; voir dire was within trial court discretion. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence supporting malice murder | Robinson claims self-defense was not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. | State maintained evidence supported murder beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence supports guilt; no reversal. |
| Jury-instruction on circumstantial evidence | Robinson contends error in instruction affected burden of proof. | State asserts instruction, though outdated, was not prejudicial; benefits Robinson. | Plain error occurred but did not prejudice substantial rights; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden v. State, 127 P.3d 1150 (Okla. 2006) (denial of complete peremptory challenges previously deemed structural error)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S. Ct. 1446 (Supreme Court 2009) (state-law error can be harmless; not necessarily structural)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless error standard for most constitutional errors)
- Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes structural from trial errors and harmless error analysis)
- Rivera, Grant v. State, 205 P.3d 1 (Okla. 2009) (cases applying Rivera to peremptory-challenge errors)