425 P.3d 399
Okla. Crim. App.2018Background
- Darren Terrell was convicted by a jury of unlawful distribution of methamphetamine within 2,000 feet of a park or school and conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine; sentenced to 18 years on each count, concurrent, with post‑imprisonment supervision.
- The controlled buy involved a confidential informant wearing audio/video equipment; Terrell delivered methamphetamine during the buy.
- During the sentencing (second) stage, the State introduced a prior‑convictions exhibit showing six felony convictions; those judgment-and-sentence documents included references to suspended/deferred sentences and revocations.
- In closing, the prosecutor referenced those prior sentences and argued the defendant had been given "chance after chance."
- Terrell appealed, arguing the jury was improperly exposed to and urged to consider suspended sentences; the claim was reviewed for plain error under Simpson/Simpson‑test precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors may be shown judgment-and-sentence documents that reference suspended/deferred sentences when proving prior convictions | Terrell: such references (and prosecutorial comment) violate Hunter and improperly invite juror speculation about parole/probation, warranting reversal | State: the documents are proper proof of prior convictions and the prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from that evidence in the punishment stage | The court overruled Hunter as unworkable and held such documents and argument are permissible; exclusion remains possible under relevance/prejudice balancing and prosecutorial appeals to sympathy or societal alarm remain prohibited |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunter v. State, 208 P.3d 931 (2009) (prior rule forbidding introduction or explicit argument referencing suspended/probationary sentences)
- Stewart v. State, 372 P.3d 508 (2016) (distinguished Hunter; admission of judgments showing suspended sentences not per se plain error)
- Camp v. State, 664 P.2d 1052 (1983) (judgment and sentence is proper proof of a former felony conviction)
- Honeycutt v. State, 432 P.2d 124 (1967) (proof of suspension of sentence may be proper proof of former felony conviction)
- Goode v. State, 236 P.3d 671 (2010) (evidence may be excluded if relevance is substantially outweighed by dangers under evidentiary balancing)