Webster v. State
2011 OK CR 14
Okla. Crim. App.2011Background
- Webster convicted of First-Degree Murder in Oklahoma County (CF-2007-7326) and sentenced to life without parole; crime involved brutal disembowelment of Audrey Harris in 1989 at 2804 North Robinson; Lloyd Ballentine initially suspected but later case was pursued as possibly involving a third party; DNA on Harris sweater and palm-print evidence linked Webster to the crime in 2007; Webster was arrested December 14, 2007, after AFIS matched his palm print; trial in 2009 focused on whether Ballentine was innocent and whether Webster’s fingerprints/DNA established his guilt; 2007 interview video of Webster was admitted at trial; defense challenged voluntariness and intelligence considerations given Webster’s mild retardation; conviction and life sentence upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the December 14, 2007 interrogation video admissible? | Webster contends Miranda waiver not knowing/intelligent due to retardation. | State argues waiver valid under totality of circumstances despite retardation. | Yes; waiver knowing and intelligent; no reversible error. |
| Was latent fingerprint evidence properly admitted and admissibility preserved? | Challenge to fingerprint individualization as scientifically unreliable. | Fingerprints properly identified Webster; DNA corroborates. | No plain error; admissible; identification supported by DNA. |
| Were the expert testimonies by Wilson, Callum, and Taylor improper or overly broad? | Testimony exceeded expertise and relied on speculation about disembowelment. | Experts testified based on experience; admissible within proper scope. | Excessive expert testimony found harmful but harmless beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. |
| Were the gruesome photographs properly admitted? | Photos were prejudicial and inflammatory. | Photos probative of crime scene and injuries; not unjustly prejudicial. | Photographs admissible; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. |
| Did prosecutorial conduct and discovery issues render trial unfair? | Closing arguments graphic; undisclosed aspects of expert testimony. | Arguments within bounds; undisclosed testimony did not undermine fairness. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; trial deemed fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) (Miranda waiver not required to pre-announce crimes investigated)
- Coddington v. State, 2006 OK CR 34 (2006) (Intent of knowing and intelligent waiver assessed under totality; retardation a factor)
- Phillips v. State, 1982 OK CR 144 (1982) (Retardation not controlling; admissibility weighed under totality)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (Custodial interrogation and pre-trial suppression standard)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (Prosecutor's statements analyzed for due process impact)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986) (Due process and prosecutorial misconduct standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Standards for admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert applies to non-scientific expert testimony as well)
- Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46 (2006) (Okla. standard for admissibility of forensic evidence; harmless error when not dispositive)
- Livingston v. State, 1995 OK CR 68 (1995) (Photographs and probative value versus prejudice in homicide cases)
- Lockett v. State, 2002 OK CR 30 (2002) (Photographs and admissibility considerations; case-specific discretion)
- Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41 (1993) (Admissibility and use of photographs and related testimony)
- DeRosa v. State, 2004 OK CR 19 (2004) (Photographic and forensic evidence in homicide trials)
- Kennedy v. State, 1982 OK CR 11 (1982) (Context of admissibility and sufficiency of evidentiary foundations)
- Welch v. State, 2000 OK CR 8 (2000) (Expert testimony boundaries in Oklahoma courts)
- Williams v. State, 2001 OK CR 9 (2001) (Assessment of admissibility and sufficiency of forensic evidence)
- Stemple v. State, 2000 OK CR 4 (2000) (Pre-trial notice and discovery related to expert testimony)