Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8

Taylor was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and shooting with intent to kill, with consecutive life sentences in Tulsa County CF-2008-2033.
Prosecution case placed the shooting near Ashley Park in Tulsa on April 28, 2008; Baltazar died, Gomez died; murder weapon located in Baltazar's car; a .38 revolver linked to Taylor was recovered.
Grandmother saw Taylor near the apartment complex the night of the shooting; he hid in a closet, washed hands, and left; he later admitted misdeeds to friends Cheatham and Basham.
Cheatham and Basham testified Taylor confessed killing two men over a debt; Taylor’s bag contained a spent .38 cartridge and a cell bill; fingerprints found on Baltazar’s car doors; blood transfer stain found in car.
Medical examiner determined Gomez died from a .38 bullet, Baltazar from a .22 bullet; defense presented inconsistent identification by Baltazar about the shooter.
The trial admitted grandmother’s statements as excited utterances under 12 O.S.Supp.2004 § 2803(2); later issues addressed confrontation concerns and admissibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for shooting with intent to kill	Taylor insists evidence only shows murder, not intent to kill.	State argues eyewitness and confessions prove intent to kill.	Evidence supports intent to kill; verdict affirmed.
Required separation instruction for multiple counts	Taylor contends jury should separately consider each count.	State argues no plain error given no timely request; Smith framework applied.	No plain error; separate-consideration instruction not required absent timely request.
Admission of grandmother’s statements as excited utterances and confrontation rights	Taylor challenges hearsay and confrontation violations.	State contends excited utterances were admissible evidence.	Testimonial hearsay violated Confrontation Clause; admission reversed for harm but harmless error analysis finds no reversal necessary due to overwhelming other evidence.
Photographs of victims admissibility and prejudice	Taylor argues photos are unduly prejudicial and not probative.	State argues photos are relevant to establish crime and rebut defense.	Photographs admissible; probative value not outweighed by prejudice; no reversal.
Prosecutorial misconduct and cumulative error	Taylor claims improper 85% Rule comments and sympathy appeals; cumulative error.	State asserts any errors were harmless and not cumulative.	85% Rule comments identified as harmless in context; no cumulative error; conviction affirmed.

Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reviewing sufficiency on appeal)
Warner v. State, 144 P.3d 838 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (accepting inferences favorable to verdict)
Smith v. State, 157 P.3d 1155 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (separate consideration instruction for joined offenses discussed)
Johnson v. State, No. F-2008-1171 (unpublished) (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (instruction on separate consideration discussed; unpublished opinion cited)
Shietze v. State, 724 P.2d 262 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986) (preservation of error and plain error standard for instructions)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court 2006) (testimonial vs non-testimonial hearsay under Crawford framework)
Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court 2006) (testimonial nature of statements during police interrogation when no emergency)
Mitchell v. State, 120 P.3d 1196 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005) (child declarant statements as testimonial under Crawford framework)
Hancock v. State, 155 P.3d 796 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (excited utterances require spontaneity and contemporaneity)
Williams v. State, 915 P.2d 371 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996) (continues the analysis of spontaneity and immediacy in excited utterances)
Florez v. State, 239 P.3d 156 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (85% rule misstatement; plain-error review framework)