Underwood v. State, 252 P.3d 221

Background

Kevin Underwood was convicted of first-degree murder of ten-year-old Jamie Bolin after a jury trial in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with a death-penalty sentence based on a single aggravating factor: heinous, atrocious, or cruel murder.
Jamie Bolin disappeared April 12, 2006; her body was found in Underwood's apartment in a large plastic tub after police interviews and a subsequent search of his premises.
Police encountered Underwood at a roadblock near his apartment; he voluntarily spoke to officers, leading to further questioning and consent to a search of his apartment.
A post-roadblock interview and a recorded confession described in detail how Underwood abducted, killed, and disposed of Jamie, including suffocation and attempted sexual acts; the interview was conducted after Miranda warnings and later written consents.
Evidence at trial included gruesome photographs, items seized from Underwood's apartment, expert mitigation testimony, and victim-impact testimony; the defense presented mental-health mitigation, while the State countered with expert testimony on threat to society.
On appeal, Underwood challenged suppression rulings, juror selection, admissibility of evidence, punishment-stage instructions, and various claims of prosecutorial and counsel performance; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of confession and search	Underwood argues Miranda issues, roadblock seizure, and subsequent interrogations render statements and search evidence inadmissible.	State maintains voluntariness and admissibility under rescue doctrine and consent principles; suppression order properly denied.	Admissibility upheld; suppression claims denied.
Juror qualification and voir dire challenges	Three jurors challenged for cause were improperly retained; peremptory challenges insufficient to cure bias.	Court properly exercised discretion; jurors could fairly consider all punishments and were not biased.	Trial court's juror rulings upheld; no reversible error.
Admissibility of physical evidence and photographs	Postmortem photos and numerous items from the apartment were inflammatory and irrelevant to guilt/mitigation.	Evidence was probative of motive, intent, and corroboration of confession; not unfairly prejudicial.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admitted.
Punishment-stage instructions and mitigation	OUJI-CR instruction on mitigating evidence is inadequate; jurors were misled about mitigating factors.	Instruction longstanding and constitutionally sound; prosecutors may argue against mitigating evidence.	Instructions upheld; no reversible error.
Constitutionality of capital-sentencing scheme	Ring v. Arizona requires aggravating factors and balancing to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; life-preservation presumption lacking.	Oklahoma scheme permits balancing of aggravators and mitigators; Ring does not require beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for weighing.	Scheme upheld; no constitutional violation.

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (factors for assessing roadside or information-seeking detentions)
Lookingbill v. State, 157 P.3d 128 (Okla. 2007) (death-penalty roadblock framework and officer discretion)
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (roadblock reasonableness and safety checks)
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (brief roadblock to solicit information about crime)
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public safety exception to Miranda reliability)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (whether street-custody encounters are custodial for Miranda purposes)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (initiation of interrogation after invoking right to counsel)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury finding of aggravating factors and capital-sentencing facts)
Jones v. State, 201 P.3d 869 (Okla. 2009) (victim-impact testimony and mitigating evidence standards)
Harris v. State, 84 P.3d 731 (Okla. 2004) (capital-jury death-penalty qualification rules)
Grant v. State, 205 P.3d 205 (Okla. 2009) (ineffective-assistance and mitigation review in capital cases)
Glossip v. State, 157 P.3d 143 (Okla. 2007) (mitigating evidence and jury instructions in capital cases)