Smith v. State
306 P.3d 557
Okla. Crim. App.2013Background
- Roderick L. Smith was convicted (1994) of five counts of first-degree murder (wife and four step-children); original death sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After Atkins v. Virginia, Smith pursued Atkins relief; an Oklahoma jury in 2004 found he was not mentally retarded, a verdict this Court later affirmed.
- The Tenth Circuit granted habeas relief on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel at sentencing and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding; Smith was resentenced in 2010.
- Before resentencing the trial court held a November 2009 retrospective competency jury trial; the jury unanimously found Smith competent.
- At the 2010 resentencing jury found multiple aggravators (prior violent felony, great risk to more than one person, heinous/atrocious/cruel; plus murder-to-avoid-arrest as to two counts) and recommended death on two counts and life without parole on three.
- Smith appealed, raising challenges to the competency proceeding, jury selection, aggravating-evidence/admissibility, and various constitutional challenges to Oklahoma’s capital scheme; the Court affirmed judgment and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atkins "mental retardation" verdict could be re-litigated at competency trial | Smith: competency jury should be allowed to consider and relitigate mental retardation evidence and the legal label matters to competency | State: Atkins issue already finally adjudicated (res judicata/issue preclusion); evidence of intellectual deficits still admissible for competency without relitigating label | Court: Atkins verdict binding; evidence of intellectual deficits admissible for competency but not the relitigation of the legal "mental retardation" determination (Propositions 1–2 denied) |
| Jury instructions/verdict form at competency trial (removal of ‘‘mental retardation’’ language) | Smith: excision prevented full assessment of his intellectual deficits for competency | State: removal proper because Atkins issue precluded; competency question is broader and only requires yes/no finding | Court: Modification permissible given posture; jury heard relevant evidence; no prejudice (Propositions 1–2 denied) |
| Request for interlocutory appellate review of competency finding | Smith: due process required interlocutory review before resentencing | State: no statutory or constitutional right to interlocutory appeal; issues preserved for direct appeal | Court: No authority for interlocutory appeal; complaints may be reviewed on direct appeal (Proposition 3 denied) |
| Juror removal for inability to consider death penalty / voir dire procedure | Smith: court erred by excusing jurors without verbatim instruction or denying questionnaires/individual voir dire; some for-cause removals improper | State: voir dire was thorough; jurors who cannot follow law or consider all penalties are disqualified; court has discretion on procedures | Court: voir dire adequate; excusal for inability to consider death penalty proper; denial of questionnaires/individual voir dire not abuse of discretion (Propositions 8–10 denied) |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of aggravating-evidence (murder-to-avoid-arrest; heinous/atrocious/cruel; prior violent felony details) | Smith: evidence insufficient or prejudicial (e.g., use of prior-attack details went beyond proving a prior violent felony; murder-to-avoid-arrest not shown as to some counts; statutory overbreadth of HAC) | State: sequence of acts, concealment, and admissions support murder-to-avoid-arrest; prior-attack details relevant to continuing-threat aggravator; HAC construction previously upheld | Court: evidence supports murder-to-avoid-arrest for Counts 2 and 5; prior-attack testimony permissible for continuing-threat & to prove violent prior; HAC not unconstitutionally overbroad (Propositions 11–15 denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (Eighth Amendment bars death penalty for mentally retarded defendants)
- Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004) (habeas relief on ineffective assistance at sentencing; remand for resentencing)
- Blonner v. State, 127 P.3d 1135 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (Atkins jury finding precludes re-litigation of legal mental-retardation issue at later stages; intellectual-deficit evidence still admissible as mitigation)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (Presumption that jurors follow curative instructions; trial court discretion in addressing inadvertent prejudicial disclosures)
- Lambert v. State, 126 P.3d 646 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (danger of permitting overly prejudicial crime-details in Atkins/competency proceedings; grounds for reversal where focus shifted from mental capacity to crimes)
- Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (Verdict inconsistency among multiple counts does not, by itself, establish error; each verdict stands if supported by substantial evidence)