STATE v. BRADLEY STATE v. BRODIE
434 P.3d 5
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Shelley Bradley (mother) and Dylan Brodie (brother) were charged in Wagoner County with: Count 1 — Intimidation of a Witness (21 O.S. § 455) and Count 2 — Conspiracy to Commit a Felony (21 O.S. § 421) related to statements about who was driving during a police pursuit.
- Makenzie Hawkins (family member) initially gave a written statement to police identifying Jacob Ode as the driver; later, at the family home, Bradley and Brodie directed Hawkins to write a contrary statement saying Ode was not in the vehicle.
- Hawkinsʼ second written statement was delivered to law enforcement by Bradley; Hawkins testified at the preliminary hearing and had transactional/use immunity.
- Magistrate Judge Shook sustained defendants’ demurrers at the preliminary hearing (finding insufficient evidence) and refused the State’s request to amend Informations to add False Preparation of Exhibits (21 O.S. § 453); reviewing judge Dobbins affirmed.
- The State appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (accelerated docket). The Court reversed in part: it denied the State’s claims as to witness intimidation and conspiracy to intimidate, but found probable cause for (a) conspiracy to commit perjury by subornation and (b) false preparation of exhibits, and remanded to bind defendants over for those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported Intimidation of a Witness (21 O.S. § 455) | State: family pressure and the fabricated statement show threats/pressure preventing or altering testimony | Bradley/Brodie: no threats, no fear, Hawkins was not prevented from testifying and statements were not under oath | Denied — insufficient evidence of threats or prevention; magistrate/reviewing judge not clearly erroneous |
| Whether evidence supported Conspiracy to Intimidate (21 O.S. § 421) | State: joint action to cause Hawkins to change statement shows conspiracy to intimidate | Defendants: no underlying intimidation; no agreement to threaten or prevent testimony | Denied — no probable cause for conspiracy to intimidate |
| Whether evidence supported Conspiracy to Commit Subornation of Perjury (21 O.S. § 504/421) | State: getting Hawkins to write and deliver a false statement was an act in furtherance of attempted perjury by subornation | Defendants: statements were not sworn; no completed perjury | Granted — probable cause that defendants conspired to attempt subornation of perjury; bind over for trial |
| Whether court should add False Preparation of Exhibits (21 O.S. § 453) | State: written false statement was an instrument prepared to be produced at proceedings; requested amendment under 22 O.S. § 264 | Defendants: argued amendment/endorsement not warranted and evidence insufficient | Granted — evidence supported false preparation of exhibits; remand to amend Informations and bind over |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Berry, 799 P.2d 1131 (1990) (preliminary hearing requires proof of statutory elements to show a crime was committed)
- Pinkley v. State, 49 P.3d 756 (2002) (definition of "testimony" and recognition that § 455 covers attempts to prevent testimony prior to oath)
- Neloms v. State, 274 P.3d 161 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard described for preliminary hearing rulings)
- State v. Vincent, 371 P.3d 1127 (2016) (standard of review for State appeal from preliminary hearing magistrate)
- Mehdipour v. State, 956 P.2d 911 (1998) (interpretation that § 455 contains distinct prohibitions: preventing testimony and threatening to alter or prevent testimony)