Mansel v. State
805 P.2d 677
Okla. Crim. App.
1991
Check Treatment

*1 677 (Okl. 562, State, 742 P.2d 563 v. Stouffer Cr.1987). MANSEL, Appellant, Walton It 436 is clear that OUJI-CR contem v. two-step analysis. The plates para first specific sets definitions graph forth Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of aggravating terms of this circumstance. No. F-87-320. By first, looking paragraph jury to this meanings placed informed of the to be is Appeals Court of Criminal Oklahoma. of heinous, upon cru the words atrocious and within the context of the law. These el 25, Jan. provide definitions foundation for the to then the second jury paragraph. consider paragraph jury

The second directs the application

limit the of the above defined

terms to there is murders where torture physical

serious of the abuse victim. paragraph objectively

this second which

guides the jury’s ag consideration of this

gravating Id. circumstance. Fos See also 591, (Okl.Cr. v. P.2d

ter 779 593

1989). procedure applying spe This of terms,

cifically defined as set forth in the paragraph,

first limited class of

crimes, as set forth para second graph, constitutionally is valid. Proffitt

Florida, 428 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 49 (1976). validating guidance addition to ease,

given to the in this jury independent

has determined that re

weighing aggravating mitigating implicit statutory

circumstances our

duty to determine the factual substantia of the validity

tion verdict

death sentence. at 564. also See Stouffer (Okl.Cr. Castro 749 P.2d 1146

1988). The States Supreme United ap

validated through these decisions its

proval appellate weighing reweigh

ing aggravating cir mitigating

cumstances Mississippi, Clemons —, —,

U.S. find,

L.Ed.2d after inde

pendently weighing the support evidence

ing aggravating espe circumstance of

cially heinous, against atrocious or cruel mitigating presented trial, evidence factually sentence of death is sub appropriate.

stantiated and *2 that Detective charges

aforementioned there was aware that Whittington became on the Appellant’s arrest a out for warrant (1) on he was arrested charge for which 23, 1986, (2) Harris which Detective June (3) conviction of file and the agreed not to subject appeal. of this is the which prior testified that further The detective ORDER the “Au- Appellant on interviewing the Mansel a/k/a Appellant, Walton The Appel- the charges, he advised gust 10th” Mansel, Mansel, Washington Walton Jack that Appellant at lant of in convicted the District charged and was Detective speak with time County, No. CRF- Case of Comanche Harris did told that Dennis Harris and was 86-407, of a Controlled Dan- of Possession Thereupon, the him. not want to talk to Intent to Distrib- gerous With Substance attorney and the requested an Appellant ute, of Two or Former Conviction After was terminated. interview in was set ac- Punishment More Felonies. Appellant began walking The detective jury’s recommendation with the cordance him in the “June up jail to book on imprisonment. years’ Appellant changed his charge when 23rd” 23, 1986, was Walton Mansel On June him agreed to talk to about mind possession of a charge on the arrested Appellant charges. The “August 10th” with intent dangerous substance controlled same. advised of his and waived was of two after former conviction to distribute explain the circumstances In his effort to time, At that Lawton more felonies. charges, leading up “August to the 10th” Harris, acting on Police Detective Dennis Whitting- apprised Detective Appellant Department, of the Lawton behalf Police upon the circumstances attendant ton of charge forego filing of said agreed to relationship present working past Appellant assist the the condition that on Harris and the Lawton Po- with Detective investiga- Department in further narcotics relating said circum- Department. lice provided us the indi- tions and “if he stances, Appellant that he had stated he the contraband that he said vidual and amphetamines out of his dealing been could ...” quite time. It is service station for some the introduction and admission Appel- Harris testified that the Detective er- Appellant that contends was statement provide him with information lant did ror. numerous times they that were contact day Appellant’s sec- up Appellant to a or two before asserts that this state- Detective August arrest on not have been since ond ment should admitted involuntary to his knowl- confession and also a Harris further testified that it was an negotiations. part communication edge, there was never Appellant agreement that Detective important to note off. anyone Harris nor else associated with the defendant and department contacted Whittington, a detective with John any agreement him that as to informa- Department, testified that told Lawton Police plea bargain tion and the workout of August Appellant voluntar- on cancelled or revoked. Defendant worked request at the ily came to the station approximately one and one-half months Appellant detective. He testified plea bargain kidnap- assumption that the about a under there “to be interviewed and effect. Nor was the deadly weapon, was force ping and assault with a during Appellant even told the interview extortion” and “he also simple assault and agreement was off that the possession marijuana with intent.” June had it relates to the agreement and that this Appellant was in the confer- It was while charges jeopardy. was in “August 10th” waiting to be interviewed on ence room were, m or confessions state not the statements that his Appellant asserts voluntary. not The court should also detective should given to the ments invol they surrounding were quire admitted since into the facts have been they of a were untary what the defendant did *3 Supreme Court has The U.S. negotiation. agreement or at least it related to the as attorney requested, is an held that once understanding agreement. of the the must cease and further discussion position in to enter should not be State again can be started that a discussion time bargain arrangement and then plea into a voluntarily starts such if the defendant during arrange- change any point basically con in what the court discussion saying parties had not done ment encounter. Edwards siders a second enough brought enough or information for- 1880, 68 Arizona, 451 U.S. police depart- options ward. Supreme The U.S. well as the defendant need to be ment as request once the has held that as to what the was examined made, “bright-line rule” attorney is it what the defendant did as relates and must questioning and all goes into effect agreement. such requests counsel. cease after an accused THE THIS IT IS ORDER OF COURT or must determine whether The trial court REMANDED to the this matter is voluntarily initiated the not the defendant County, Okla- District Court of Comanche encounter when the defendant second homa, evidentiary to hold an for such court supposedly changed his being jail, taken to hearing or not the to determine whether agreed to talk to the detective mind and voluntary a free and con- Appellant made “August charges. 10th” relative to the fession, or not the confession whether record, impossible it is to deter From the subsequent from a second or encoun- came was, fact, this in a mine whether or not and, so, if freely and was made whether ter con voluntary waiver as it relates to such pursuant to a the statements were made and, further, whether the state fession bargain arrangement which would plea pursuant plea to a bar ments were made hearing involuntary. Such make same so, again, If the state gain arrangement. transcript-thereof forwarded to shall be and, voluntary there ments would not be (90) ninety days within this Court fore, inadmissible. order. problem by discussed particular This IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Hopper Parks the case of F. Lane /s/James (Okl.Cr. 1987) whereby 736 P.2d 538 LANE, F. JAMES adopted the so-called “Massa Judge Presiding judge The trial will have chusetts Rule”. dissenting. to determine whether the confession Thereafter, /s/Gary Lumpkin if voluntary involuntary. or L. involuntary, then LUMPKIN,

the court determines it is L. GARY If the confession is de it is inadmissible. Presiding Judge Vice voluntary, question termined to be Parks /s/Ed jury to is submitted to the voluntariness PARKS, ED circum gether with all of the facts and Judge surrounding the confession. Yel stances /s/Tom Brett (Okl.Cr. loweagle 551 P.2d 1130 BRETT, TOM 1976). The court at the same time should Judge bargain determine the nature of the A. Johnson /s/Charles arrangement between the defendant JOHNSON, A. CHARLES Harris. The court could at an Detective Judge was, hearing if there evidentiary determine LANE, Presiding Judge, dissenting: If plea bargain arrangement. majority this this, course, disagree would the case such was evidentiary remanded for an case should be determining whether or assist the court it was (1) It the de- is clear from record whether hearing to determine: instigated conversation voluntarily waived his Miranda defendant who fendant (2) violence, promises a confession rights giving before absent threats bargain arrange- there whether of the detec- improper influence on behalf to defendant’s motion ment. Pursuant voluntarily signed a clear he tive. being as obtained suppress confession and he Miranda form understood fifth and fourteenth in violation of his him the communicated to they were rights, the trial court conduct- amendment freely It that he arresting is clear officer. evidentiary hearing address- pretrial ed a voluntarily those There waived hearing evi- After ing these issues. intervening circumstances was sufficient *4 judge trial overruled presented the dence defendant’s arrest that occurred between motion. to the confession his confession show However, State, counsel failed to voluntary. defendant’s 699 P.2d Cooks v. at was offered object when the statement (Okl.Cr.1985). Wong v. Sung 653 See also timely a Mo- When a defendant files 486, trial. States, 471, 371 83 S.Ct. U.S. United Suppress fails to renew the tion to (1963). 9 by its objection objecting to introduction prima has The State established facie trial, right this a waiver of his constitutes voluntary. that confession was State, complain Wing to court. v. to appellant absolutely no evidence to offered 196, (Okl.Cr.1978). an P.2d 198 Since 579 contrary. Appellant’s constitutional assignment properly of has not been error therefore, violated were not review is limited to preserved, court of no error the admission there was State, only. v. 766 fundamental error Cole into v. statement evidence. See Dixon (Okl.Cr.1988). v. P.2d 358 See also Harris State, (Okl.Cr.1987) quoting, P.2d 942 737 State, (Okl.Cr.1982). P.2d 645 1036 For the State, (Okl.Cr.1984). 693 v. P.2d 617 Stout below, opinion set I am of the reasons forth fundamental error did not occur this that Furthermore, I disagree majori- case. ty evidentiary hearing an is needed to that appellant challenges an the admis- When in fact a plea determine whether there was sability of a statement or confession the arrangement nature bargain and the of is on to it burden the State show was not arrangement. said The State does dis- State, voluntary. v. P.2d 799 Hardin 649 pute agree- and the record shows that (Okl.Cr.1982). voluntary A confession whereby made Detective Harris ment was by any when it is not extracted sort of long charges” “hold the as as the would violence, by any of nor threats obtained defendant assisted further narcotics implied promises, slight, direct however vestigations that to the arrest of a lead any improper influ- nor exertion of particular individual. The detective in- State, 591, Young 670 ence. P.2d 594 that if the informa- formed the defendant (Okl.Cr.1983)quoting Malloy v. Hogan, 378 provided tion did not lead to an arrest “the 1, 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d U.S. 653 charges would be filed with District trial, hearing At the and at Detective Whit- prose- Attorney’s office and he would be tington testified the defendant was advised cuted.” signed rights. of his Miranda Defendant erroneously asserts all Appellant state- he acknowledging the Miranda form 12 protected pursuant to ments are O.S. understood them and counsel part plea negotiations. as 2410 whereby the § interview was terminated. assuming applies Even statute and all walking he jail While stated that he plea made from the time of the statements “changed had his mind” and wished to talk “arrangement” the arrest June 23 the “charges about at hand.” The detec- inadmissable, nothing are defendant said again Mi- tive advised defendant of his period during this time was offered into randa The defendant them waived only at issue proceeded make the evidence. The statement oc- statement appeal. arrested. subject which is the curred after defendant was Fur-

681 thermore, whether the state- determine nego- involuntary SPEARS, Tommy Appellant,

ment was Lee tiations, has held that a two First, analysis applied. must be tiered Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of actual whether accused exhibited an No. F-89-1056. subjective expectation negotiate second, at the time of the discussion and Appeals of Criminal of Oklahoma. expectation rea- whether the accused’s Jan. totality cir- given objective sonable P.2d cumstances. Gillum (Okl.Cr.1984). also Blackwell v. See (Okl.Cr.1983). P.2d 12 record reveals defendant

given adequate warnings several Miranda

prior to Defendant giving statement. knowledge

had the did he *5 right attorney,

have to an also him.

anything against he said could be used it is clear that under- Defendant rights

stood when he counsel.

The defendant therefore must have real- consequences of waiving

ized talking Despite detective.

fact Defendant was informed the off, many there so are

tervening circumstances the “ar- between

rangement” dissipate and the confession

any that the statements would still belief protected.

be The defendant who is not a legal system,

newcomer to the could not reasonably

have still believed that he was relationship

in an informant with the State. expectation communication agree-

the defendant was still of a given totality

ment not reasonable surrounding giv-

of the circumstances

ing of the statement.

For reasons the above DISSENT

remanding to the trial an eviden- court for

tiary hearing.