Taylor v. State
2011 OK CR 8
Okla. Crim. App.2011Background
- Taylor, the appellant, was convicted of first-degree murder of Joe Gomez and shooting with intent to kill Baltazar in Tulsa County (CF-2008-2033).
- Baltazar and Gomez were lured to a meeting location under false debt settlement; Baltazar survived, Gomez died.
- Appellant confessed to friends that he killed two Mexicans over a debt and that he used a .38 handgun; a spent .38 cartridge linked to Appellant’s bag and gun.
- Physical evidence connected Appellant to the crime: fingerprints on Baltazar’s car doors, ammunition in his closet, and the murder weapon recovered in Baltazar’s car; ballistics matched the shell and bullets to the weapons.
- Grandmother saw Appellant around 10:30 p.m. the night of the shooting; investigators later interviewed her, eliciting statements that were admitted as excited utterances.
- Investigators recovered statements from the grandmother and the bag with items linking Appellant to the crime; testimony included the eyewitness, fingerprint, and ballistics evidence; defense did not call Appellant to testify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for shooting with intent to kill | Taylor argues insufficient evidence to prove intent to kill Baltazar. | Taylor contends alternatives could explain the shootings. | Evidence supported intent to kill; sufficient to convict. |
| Whether a separate-Count instruction was required | Joinder of offenses required separate consideration instruction per Smith line. | No such instruction required absent timely request. | Not plain error; separate-consideration instruction not mandatory here. |
| Admission of grandmother’s excited-utterance statements and confrontation clause | Hearsay admissible as excited utterances; statements corroborated other evidence. | Hearsay violated confrontation clause; not sufficiently reliable. | Admission was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given remaining evidence. |
| Prosecutor’s 85% Rule and other closing statements | Statements about 85% life expectancy misstate statute and mislead jury. | Possible plain error but not substantial enough to affect outcome. | Plain-error analysis: no relief; error did not influence verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okla. 1985) (standard for sufficiency after reviewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- Smith v. State, 157 P.3d 1155 (Okla. 2007) (separate consideration instruction for joined offenses not required absent timely request)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay require cross-examination or unavailability)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (non-testimonial emergency statements; ongoing emergency analysis)
- Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimony exception when statements are testimonial; ongoing emergency focus)
- Mitchell v. State, 120 P.3d 1196 (Okla. 2005) (child declarant; excited utterance framework)
- Williams v. State, 915 P.2d 371 (Okla. 1996) (contemporaneity and spontaneity considerations for excited utterance)