Moore v. State

MOORE, Appellant, Dewey George Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE

No. F-85-668. Appeals of Oklahoma.

Court Criminal 17, 1990.

Jan. April

Rehearing Denied

1981, 741) (Count II), After Former Con- § (21 viction of Two or More Felonies O.S. 51) in County District Court, CRF-84-4758, Case No. before the Gullett, Honorable L. Judge. James District jury aggravating The found three circum- stances, and appellant respec- sentenced tively ninety- to death and nine-hundred (999)years imprisonment. nine affirm. We Twelve-year-old J.G. abducted from High parking the Carl Albert Junior School City game, lot Midwest after a football p.m., 9:00 on September between and 9:30 pep uniform, 1984. She wore club consisting of a gray red sweater and a skirt, pony earrings, red and was on her day. period Scarberry, Mrs. Debbie mother, J.G.’s identified State Exhibit top which was in a sack found brown on Grocery Breeden’s Store less one than trailer, appellant’s block from one pony earrings day red J.G. wore the she disappeared. Bill Midwest Detective Howard testified that around 11:00 on a.m. September body J.G.’s was found lying facedown in a ditch at and Tenth Peebly Harrah, Oklahoma, Road some (10) miles City. ten from Midwest bra, pulled clad up victim was in a off her breasts, panties and rolled down below her Her had body buttocks. adhesive and bind- wrists, ankles, on ing thighs marks piece tape A duct throat. was wadded hair, in her and there were abrasions on Detective her neck face. Howard ob- pattern upper of dots on served J.G.’s arm, pattern which matched the on a belt paper in a found sack on roof of Bree- Store, Grocery located less than one den’s from trailer block Oklahoma Gelvin, Appellate Pete De- Asst. Public City. fender, City, for appellant. Oklahoma Graham, investigator Nicky for the Gen., Henry, Atty. Robert H. Tomilou examiner, hairs medical collected and fibers Gen., Gentry Liddell, Atty. Asst. Oklahoma appeared body by held to the to be City, appellee. placed He the evidence en- adhesive. Deputy velopes, which he turned over to OPINION Williams, County David PARKS, Judge: Presiding Choi, medical Office. Dr. Chaik Sheriff’s Moore, examiner, autopsy Dewey conducted an on the vic- George appellant, the cause of death to Degree First tim and determined tried and convicted of (21 O.S.1981, possibly asphyxia by strangulation and Aforethought Malice Murder 701.7) (Count I), (21 smothering. pubic head and Dr. Choi took Kidnapping O.S. samples, combing, brother, pubic appel- hair did a hair Eddie Moore testified his lant, City home, came to his hair, Midwest locat- tape scalp duct removed matted ed less than one mile from Carl Albert hairs, fibers which were turned High, Junior p.m. Septem- around 8:45 Deputy over Williams. Appellant expressed ber concern Comes, spotter Grace at the football outstanding about an warrant for drunk game, p.m. testified that about 9:30 on driving tag, and new car and left between game after the in Mid- p.m. wearing jeans 9:15 and 9:30 blue and a City, parked west while outside the locker light long colored sleeve western He shirt. room, blowing, she heard a car horn saw said State Exhibits 66 and 67 looked like traffic, up in five cars backed and said the given appellant car. He had yellow pictures appel- like the car looked tape. several rolls of duct depicted lant’s car State Exhibits and Richard Owens testified his 1977 maroon Gomes, player, 67. Paulo a football was oldsmobile, Delta 88 which had no hub by running parking game the lot after the caps, was stolen between 8:00 and a.m. 9:00 mustache, he man cap when saw a with a September parked on while it was vest, grab girl, and hold of a who was Grocery next door to Breeden’s Store wearing pep yelling a club uniform and City. having pair Oklahoma He denied a help, push yellow and her in a car. Gomes gloves in his car. He stated Breeden’s appellant first identified he as man saw Grocery one-eighth Store was about of a night, but then stated “.... it was kind mile from Hillcrest Mobile Home Park. tell, really of dark. I couldn’t but what Swanson, Margaret Manager Assistant I’ve seen looked like him.” He later saw Park, Hillcrest Mobile Home rented the appellant Cragg ten or twelve times on television. trailer at 3209 appellant Drive to on cross-examination, September Sep- On 1984. At 10:44 a.m. on Gomes denied iden- City tember Midwest Police Offi- tifying a photographic different man in a cer spotted reported Joe Tuberville the car lineup. responded affirmatively He when stopped stolen Mr. it. Owens and Offi- positive appellant asked if he was was cer appellant Tuberville identified as the night. man he saw that he When was Appellant driver of the car. was read his cross-examination, recalled for further rights larceny and arrested for of an auto- may picked Gomes admitted he have out appellant mobile. State Exhibit 8 showed appellant in photo lineup for what he had a mustache when he was on booked wearing, person and a different for the September Ingle 1984. Detective Silas redirect, build. On testified he Gomes processed the vehicle and a found black appellant identified based on what he saw pair gloves of men’s on the front seat. night place, incident took and did determining gloves After did not be- rely on what he saw on television. Owens, long examining to Mr. them Billy Mrs. heavy Turner saw a tall set hair, finding part closer of a Detective In- wearing man a blue checked flannel shirt gle gloves delivered the and hair to Janice jeans put and blue his arm around a short City Davis with the Oklahoma Police De- hair, girl, wearing with short brown a partment green A forensic chemist lab. cheerleader cap appellant costume. She saw the man was taken from at the Mid- car, door, City girl yellow open walk the to a west Jail. mouth,

put his hand over her hit her in the Richard Dean testified worked face, push her into the car. Mr. Turn- September September for him from until put er saw a white man arm a his around when at the arrived girl uniform, in a put cheerleader City job Midwest site between 9:45 yellow thought a car. He the man had a quit, 10:00 a.m. and said he had to because wearing mustache and was cap. coronary during night.” he “had a mild yellow Turners both indicated the check, car gave appellant When Mr. Dean depicted nervous,” looked like the one appellant appeared “very State Exhib- “wide driving its 66 and eyed,” and was an older dark col- ings missing hubcaps, instead were found under the cushions ored that was on car drove, usually couch; (8) appellant’s car he a hair found on yellow J.G.’s depicted Dean State Exhib- microscopically identified as wrist consistent with its 66 and appellant’s hair; (9) leg scalp hairs found the front floorboard and driver’s seat of Howard went the Hill- Detective Bill consistent with appellant’s car were JG.’s Park in crest Home Mobile hair; (10) a scalp sanitary hair on a used 1984, and, pursuant to a on napkin appellant’s found under bed was warrant, a search of search led J.G.; (11) scalp consistent with four hairs yellow trailer Buick. Detec- and his appellant’s bedspread, found on six scalp maroon mats in tive Howard observed floor sheet, hairs found on his bottom and two appellant’s car, up tape found wadded duct scalp topsheet, hairs found on his were trailer, packed partially suit- outside the J.G.; (12) scalp consistent with several including case folded clothes and toilet arti- afghan hairs found on an on cles, kotex under and used bed couch, covers, one scalp cushion master Another search of the bedroom. floor, living hair on the room were consist- pursuant trailer was conducted to search J.G.; (13) scalp ent with hair found inside when warrant on October officers glove, in samples a which was found the stolen car earring seized fiber various and arrested, appellant driving when backings in a crack of the couch under the was was J.G.; (14) consistent and ten scalp cushions. with scalp pieces hairs and hair thirteen found Macon at the Mo- James resided Hillcrest the duct tape on in the brown .sack at in bile Home Park October 1984. On grocery Breeden’s were consistent with Friday, he October walked Breeden’s J.G. Grocery paper and saw a brown sack Store on the roof. He first noticed the sack on Ms. Davis divided the fiber evidence into 30,1984. Macon and Tim Baker (1) separate categories: three Recent Asso- opened on the roof and climbed the brown on gold ciations—maroon and fibers J.G.’s sack, contained several items includ- respectively foot like the maroon fi- were ing tape, knife, up used duct a wadded gold on the and the bers floor mats fibers belt, napkin, cigarette a feminine and butts. car; (2) carpet appellant’s on in Recent police up who picked men called the Strong brown/gold fibers Associations— contents. sack and its from used in sack were like Kotex brown brown/gold appellant’s living in fibers Davis, Janice a forensic chemist with the carpet, tape room found on duct blue fiber Department, Police testified green scalp matted in hair and J.G.’s fiber concerning findings in her upon detail ana- panties, respectively like on her were blue lyzing numerous items and concluded in green afghan appel- in on (1) and fibers part type relevant that: J.G. was blood couch; O, unknown; (3) Extremely Strong (2) lant’s Recent appellant secretor status secretor; (3) turquoise fibers found on type was blood O and a the Associations— oral, hair, vaginal, anal, swabs, tape scalp pant- in on her right thigh and duct J.G.’s bra, ies, wrist, in panties right as well as the and from on her on the used Kotex taken semen; (4) sack, around any wrapped J.G. did not contain the brown and (consistent J.G.) from on sanitary napkin scalp appel- used taken hair with brown bed, top Grocery turquoise sack on of Breeden’s contained lant’s were all like the fibers couch, type pubic afghan appellant’s blood as well as five in the brown hairs J.G.; (5) combing eight pubic with found were consistent the eleven fiber in J.G.’s living cigarette appellant’s butts taken from sack like brown in room brown fibers Grocery appellant’s in by carpet, at were and found Breeden’s smoked red fibers 0; floor, (6) bed, type hairbrush, living room and pony secretor with blood a red couch, backing pocket in earring front and like used and knife the one worn Kotex .sack, were like the appellant was found at brown and on J.G. brown sack (7) Grocery; sample two red Carl Albert Junior earring Breeden’s back- fibers (J.G.’s High Pep pep grounds. sweater. club Two friends of Club Ms. Moore testi- recovered.) appellant friendly polite. fied was and uniform was never Ca- thy appellant in Baker knew when he appellant’s objection, Over Ms. Davis tes- loving caring person. Elwyn was a my opinion, tified that “in based on all of Thurston, a methodist minister who knew evidence, serologi- this all of the hairs 1967-1971, appellant appel- from testified posi- cal and all the fibers ... [there] beating tying lant was remorseful for I am convinced that tive association. [J.G.] up Betty Depate, his wife. whose sister is Dewey George living Moore's was room brother, appellant’s married to Eddie (Tr. VI, 1259) his car.” Moore, appellant testified she had known Appellant presented The State rested. twenty-one years, that Eddie warned wearing evidence that the victim was a her not to leave her children alone with jacket night dark colored reversible appellant reputation because of his for mo- abduction, pep that her club uniform children, lesting appellant and that previously had been worn two other charming drinking, when he was not but girls, yellow cars with that four backs drinking. was obnoxious when he was Re- shaped like car were seen at a verend Winslow of the Robert Wickline High Carl Albert Junior football scrim- City, United Methodist Church Midwest mage on 1985. The defense October spoke appellant jail while he was in rested, presented and the State no rebuttal. pending trial. He said was minis- During stage, the second the State ad- mates, tering to cell and his life had mean- prior felony mitted six convic- Moore, ing. appellant’s daughter Brenda Attempted Degree Rape-1974; tions: First law, pleasant said when he Aggravated Kidnapping and Indecent Lib- drinking, was not that her husband warned Child-1976; erties With a Assault and Bat- appellant, her never to alone be with and tery Dangerous Weapon, With a Child appellant if received a life sentence Beating, Larceny and a From House-1981. she would him with visit her husband if her Mary Courtney appellant during lived with her to. husband wanted 1973-74. She testified he was in convicted Neal, appellant’s Kim niece and a music breaking tying 1981 for into her house and minister, appellant regu- wrote and visited up. appellant her She was afraid of when larly jail. Appellant while he was in wrote drinking. daughter, he was Her sixteen- letters, twenty-six her which were admitted year-old V.C., testified that when she was spiritual to show his nature. Ms. Neal said years six living old and her mother was appellant sincerely changed had being since appellant Texas, appellant with in woke her jail, that he made “a definite commit- night, and her two one tied brothers them gave ment to God ... he his whole heart to nude, up and then sat in a chair nude and God,” and that him she would visit often if try get told them to to untied. V.C. also Clark, Vaughn he received a life sentence. night, performed said on another she fella- attended, Pastor of the Church Ms. Neal appellant tio on after he kill threatened to religious appellant’s experience said Dennis, Sylvia her. who was married to sincere, precious that his life was to him (7) appellant years beginning seven meaning and would have to other inmates. during appel- testified that that time Moore, brother, appellant’s Eddie described occasions, lant beat her on numerous tied appellant the abused childhood he and suf- her, her, up, her choked tried to smother fered, and life said had mean- her, raped almost killed her on three occa- Burns, ing. psycholo- Dr. Cecil a clinical sions, and beat children. gist, diagnosed appellant having as a bor- Fourteen in mitiga- disorder, witnesses testified personality derline but not schizo- Moore, mother, tion. Elda testi- phrenic psychotic, or that he tended to lose appellant fied suffered from asthma as a control under the influence of alcohol or child, church regularly, drugs, physically went to attended a other that he was abused military enlisted, child, high year, feelings, school for a as a that he had homosexual hatred, honorably feelings anger, discharged deep and was sexual con- on medical bitterness, while he was and Walker fusion (Okl.Cr.1986), denied, he cert. U.S. because could control drawn to children (1986). 93 L.Ed.2d 600 This a He S.Ct. them, pedophile. not said he was sexually egregious publicity record is devoid of the to stimulated appellant tended be trials, pervaded and resulted sight struggling while of someone presumption prejudice, Rideau v. According to a 1958 Veteran’s up. tied Louisiana, 723, 83 S.Ct. report, appellant 373 U.S. became Hospital medical (1963), Texas, school, L.Ed.2d 663 381 U.S. he Estes v. when started bedwetter (1965), if S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 543 penis tie his he his threatened to father later, Maxwell, Sheppard it 384 U.S. days discov- continued. A few S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 600 Conse penis tied his appellant had ered “totality quently, so-called of circum causing an Dr. Burns string, infection. stances” must be examined determine appellant’s mental illness could be said life, whether received “fundamen stage this his but cured at tally fair” trial. at prison Murphy, U.S. in a structured could function well Walker, cross-examination, 723 P.2d at Dr. S.Ct. 2036. See environment. On appellant was ever Burns testified that if good prison, chance was released from A careful review of voir estab dire criminal acts vio-

that he would commit judge “scrupulously lishes that the trial continuing threat to lence and constitute jurors indi potential excused those who society. they might not able to set aside cated opinions of knowledge their or the crimes I. fairly judge appel impartially PRETRIAL presented lant at the trial.” on the evidence (Okl. Moore v. A. Cr.1983). judge, appropri The trial where error, assignment In ninth ate, poten allowed individual voir dire of erred in appellant claims the trial court hearing who jurors tial remembered change refusing grant his motion for reading reported about the offense venue, denying fair thus him a trial before shortly the after the crime. news media 19, 1985, impartial jury. February On an potential jurors Virtually all of the who change counsel filed a motion for defense hearing reading or news me remembered venue, support, of brief in four affida shortly of after it dia accounts the offense stating the belief that could vits happened, specific not remember de could County, trial not receive fair in Oklahoma tails such accounts at the time of voir of by the news media re due to revelations dire, only “vaguely” read but remembered crimes garding prior arrests other ing hearing something about the crime or prior for sex-related of convictions jurors ulti after occurred. Each of the it (O.R. 6-16) Daily The An article in fenses. try they mately sworn to the case stated 10, 1984, October detailed Oklahoman on innocence, apply presumption the of could appellant’s prior record from 1957 criminal something or of and those who read heard (O.R. 17-18) to 1984. they stated could set aside about the case the on knowledge such and decide case the Supreme Court estab- The United States presented Clearly, in the appellate evidence court. two-prong test for review lished lapse time commission of process due in the alleged of due violations to between 27-28, 1984, pre-trial September the on the knowledge by jurors and offense prior early October, Florida, coverage in news publicity Murphy in U.S. extensive 1984, Septem 2031, (1975). beginning the of trial on 794, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 95 S.Ct. 1985, profound effect ... on if "the influence ber “had a presumed Prejudice softening effacing opinion.” in media, community jury, or either at the news Yount, itself, pervaded courtroom U.S. Patton large or 2889, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 Id. at 95 S.Ct. at S.Ct. proceedings.” any body found around 11:00a.m. the next jurors made was None of the who served Harrah, morning Oklahoma. Ad- near suggested impartiality comments which on the tape hesive marks found victim’s Murphy, could not be laid aside. neck, ankles, wrists, upper arms indi- 799-800, The sole 95 S.Ct. at 2036. U.S. thereby, and cated she was bound silver the most potential juror who remembered gray tape duct was found in her hair. account regarding the news media’s details were found on Dark red or maroon fibers individually voir dired. of the crime was ankles, the victim’s feet and and a blue memory limited to details concern- His was found on her wrist. fiber the crime He ing where and how occurred. anything remember whatsoever did not appel- interviewed Detective Howard media’s account of concerning the news lant’s brother who stated record, prior criminal and was residence, located one-half mile was at his judge. Ap- excused for cause the trial High from Albert Junior School Carl failed to show that pellant has City, evening September Midwest on process permits an inference of selection left Appellant between 9:00 Florida, prejudice. actual See Dobbert v. yellow Spe- p.m. driving 9:30 a 1976 Buick 302-03, 97 S.Ct. 2302- 432 U.S. Appellant apprehended driving a cial. (1977); 03, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 Brown v. reported vehicle stolen in Midwest on (Okla.Crim.App.1987); morning September 1984. On assign- Walker, P.2d at 278-79. This lo- September Detective Howard ment is without merit. yellow Special registered Buick cated appellant at his residence the Hillcrest B. Park, located one-half mile Mobile Home High De- error, from Carl Albert Junior School. assignment ap- In his eleventh tective Howard observed maroon floor arguments challenging pellant makes three appellant's appeared vehicle which mats failure to sustain his mo- the trial court’s contain maroon fibers similar to those quash the search warrants used to tion to body. found on the victim’s The victim against admitted obtain forensic evidence asphyxiation died from manual or suffoca- appellant at trial. Two search warrants signs tion. There were no of obvious sexu- covering appellant’s trailer and car were molestation, examiner al but medical and executed on issued thigh found a on the substance victim’s is- additional search warrants were Two then might be semen. affidavit au- sued and executed October appellant’s prior convic- recited several thorizing further searches of abduction, involving choking, and tions trailer and car. sexual molestation of several minor female incidents, appellant In one of the victims. tape, separate and in a gray used duct sup Appellant first contends the by nine-year-old girl a incident he abducted porting affidavits for the search warrants forcing her into his vehicle. 29, 1984, September failed to issued on foregoing, appel On the basis of the probable cause to search establish County Judge William Saied issued trailer and car. District lant’s authorizing police two search warrants by The affidavit Detective William Ho- trailer, to search and his ear ward, seven-year veteran of the Midwest a (O.R. 34-41) nearby. Appellant parked Department, recited that Police overruling erred in urges the trial court disappeared twelve-year-old J.G. around suppress, cit- defense counsel’s motion to 27, 1984, from the p.m. 9:15 constitutional ing both federal and state High Junior School football Carl Albert Const, IV; amend. grounds. U.S. See a white male stadium. Witnesses observed Const, II, disagree. art. 30. We Okla. general descrip- the victim’s girl force a of amendment standard The current fourth yellow into a car described as a 1975 tion review, “totality appellate the so-called or Torino. The victim’s of 1976 Ford Fairlane

395 beyond “nothing set mere conclu approach, tablishes the circumstances” Appellant, at Gates, 462 U.S. sion.” 58. He cites in Illinois v. forth Brief of State, 432, (Okl. 504 P.2d McCann 435 2331, 2317, (1983): L.Ed.2d 527 103 S.Ct. Cr.1972), a proposition magis for scrutiny courts of [A]fter-the-fact conclusions, accept trate should not mere should not sufficiency of an affidavit police suspi a simple and that assertion of A the form of de novo review. take not cion is alone sufficient establish probable ‘determination of magistrate’s agree While probable cause. we with paid great be deference cause should rule, find applicable we do not it here. courts.’ should reviewing ... ‘[C]ourts Having specific reviewed facts recited by interpreting not invalidate warrants] affidavit, above, in the summarized we hyper-technical, rather affidavits] find the affidavit sufficient. See Hines v. commonsense, a than manner.’ ‘[S]o 1202, (Okl.Cr.1984); P.2d a long magistrate as had substantial 269, Sockey v. (Okl. concluding]’ for that a search basis ... Cr.1984). This case does not involve a wrongdoing, uncover evidence would concerning reliability question or credi requires no the Fourth Amendment informant, bility of an undisclosed such more, (citations omitted) Aguilar Spinelli presented McCann, Gates, majority eases. Luk 434; In of the United States at 1238, (Okl.Cr. er v. rigid Supreme abandoned more Court 1972). This claim is meritless. Aguilar two-pronged developed test Texas, 1509, 84 S.Ct. 378 U.S. Spinelli (1964), v. United

L.Ed.2d 723 States, Appellant S.Ct. 393 U.S. next contends the lan Gates, authorizing guage the warrants seizure L.Ed.2d 637 U.S. at “clothing including garments and other 103 S.Ct. at 2332. items, “any to” but limited stated “strong preference” Because its for clothing containing men’s fibers colored by a warrants issued neutral search containing or red” and “items traces blue magistrate, the United States Su- detached preceeding improp articles” any of the ‘in preme Court has “declared that a doubt- general search. dis erly authorized We case a a war- marginal ful or search under agree. may rant sustainable where without one ” police to The search warrants authorized Leon, United States v. it would fall.’ car trailer and search U.S. S.Ct. following: United States (1984) (Quoting L.Ed.2d 677 Blood, semen, saliva, p[h]ysiological Ventresca, 380 U.S. 85 S.Ct. fibers, secretions, hair, finger- fluids & (1965)). 13 L.Ed.2d 684 We hold clothing garments in- prints, other provided mag- issuing that the affidavit cluding girl’s pep but not limited to: istrate with a substantial basis for deter- color, gray uniform maroon and club mining probable the existence of cause. nylon quilted jacket with reversible black Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2332. U.S. lace-style gray, girl’s tennis side blue Thus, appellant’s fourth amendment claim shoes; socks pants, red bloomer white is meritless. them, any tape letters “C.A.” on including tape one not limited to over but Turning claim under color, any gray inch width silver or II, article section 30 of the Oklahoma Con clothing containing fibers colored men’s stitution, note that two members of this we red, novelty key ring key on a blue or the Gates standard rejected recently Court thong-type or made to sandal resemble purposes review of a state constitu of shoe, .any of of containing traces items State, Merry v. claim. tional preceeding the articles.... Thus, must we (O.R. 36) Id. Aguilar-Spinelli apply the standard. Specifically, appellant claims search does not extend the To ensure that search purpose and law beyond its that the es- authorized warrant invalid because affidavit applied prac- engage requirement officers do not in ex must “be with a enforcement rummaging through personal be ploratory flexibility only tical measure of re- longings, a search must describe warrant specificity.” quires reasonable United specificity particularity place with Shoffner, v. 826 F.2d 630-32 States to be searched and the items to be seized. (7th Cir.1987). (Okl. Caffey v. 661 P.2d 900-01 240, 242 Kinsey Unlike Const, IV; Cr.1983). amend. See U.S. (Okl. Cr.1979), challenged lan where the II, art. 30. Professor Okla. Const. § guage limit of the search warrant was not LaFave, authority Wayne leading in this ed to offense outlined the warrant area, has stated: sepa of but authorized seizure evidence of greater degree ambiguity A of will be offenses, rate and distinct in the case at police tolerated when the have done the bar, language challenged by appellant expected that could under the best be is limited to the offenses outlined circumstances, by acquiring the de- all specific preced warrant list items scriptive facts which reasonable investi- ing Maryland, it. See Andresen gation type of this of crime could be 463, 480-82, 2737, 2748-49, U.S. 96 S.Ct. expected by ensuring that to uncover and challenged L.Ed.2d 627 When the all those facts were included language is read in context of the list of general type A more de- warrant ... seized, clearly items to be it is limited to scription the na- will be sufficient when relating kidnapping evidence to the objects ture of the to be seized are such J.G., murder of and not some other crime. they expected could not to have specific rejected more characteristics.... Id. Andresen the defendant’s claim that certain warrants “were rendered LaFave, 2 W. A Search and Seizure: fatally ‘general’ addition, by the in each Treatise on the Fourth Amendment warrant, particu to the exhaustive list of 4.6(a), (2d 1987) (footnotes at 238-39 ed. documents, larly phrase described omitted). description is valid if it is as “[A] fruits, ‘together with other instrumentali specific as the circumstances and the na activity investigation-per ture of the under ties and evidence of crime at this [time] ” Blum, mit.” United States v. 753 F.2d unknown.’ Id. at 96 S.Ct. (11th Cir.1985) (citing United Concerning appellant’s reliance Wuagneux, States v. 683 F.2d Fletcher v. (11th Cir.1982), denied, cert. 464 U.S. (Okl.Cr.1986),we find the instant case dis- (1983)). 78 L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. Under tinguishable. Fletcher, Unlike this case case, the circumstances of this we believe questions regarding does not involve “the warrant the items to be described issuing magistrate’s signing of both war- pos seized with as much exactitude as was rants, depend upon nor it the reliabili- does stage investigation at that sible ... Further, ty of an informant. the two sufficiently limited the discretion to be searched, places to be trailer conducting exercised officers car, proximity were in close to each Wolski, People Ill.App.3d search.” other. 38 Ill.Dec. 403 N.E.2d (1980). Wolski, In the broad authorization clothing to seize “articles of with blood or thereon,” male or female secretions Finally, appellant claims that evidence general held not to constitute a warrant. subsequently seized from his car and trail- Here, nothing Id. there is to indicate pursuant er to a warrant issued on October clothing garments could have been prior illegal were the fruits of the any greater degree par described search and seizure conducted on Thus,

ticularity. “spe the warrant aswas upheld 1984. Insofar as we have the activity cific as the nature of the under validity of the search investigation permitted]” in this case. warrant, Blum, pursuant F.2d at to this claim must fail. particularity 1001. The in under the standard enunciated With II. offer Having reviewed defense counsel’s of JURY SELECTION concerning proof questions the he intended ask, questioning find further assignment, to that In his fifth we excusing may have in confusion. only erred in resulted argues the trial court (Okl.Cr. during voir Parrish for cause Banks v. venireman 1985). questions counsel an The relevant had been allowing defense dire without clearly prospec him. A asked answered. Id. There opportunity to rehabilitate deny not to juror may for cause be fore “it was error defense be excused tive punish capital or on counsel further examination.” cause his her views of Stouffer (Okl.Cr.1987). ‘prevent juror’s ment if “the views would performance no of the substantially impair Having the found abuse discretion or judge, assignment this juror as a in accordance with his trial is meritless. his duties ” Wainwright and his oath.’ instructions S.Ct, Witt, 469 U.S. III. The record L.Ed.2d 841 GUILT-INNOCENCE the trial dialogue the between reveals as follows: judge and venireman Parrish A. Parrish, I will ask THE Mr. COURT: error, assignment In first which is charged in this ease is you, the defendant subpropositions, into four divided degree. It is murder in the first with the challenges trial court’s admission to whether ... your duty determine [he] Davis, testimony expert by Ms. Janice The guilty guilty or ... law ... is not City the forensic chemist with Oklahoma murder provides punishment that the for Department. Police life death. If degree in first is the beyond doubt that you find a reasonable of murder the guilty the defendant legal both degree, you first can consider claims trial court Appellant first the punishments, or death? life expert qualifying Ms. Davis as an erred in MR. PARRISH: No. “qualified may A as witness. witness ques- this you me ask THE COURT: Let skill, by knowledge, experience, expert tion, you If a reason- beyond sir. found O.S.1981, training or education...” guilty that the defendant was able doubt sufficiency as to the 2702. “The decision if, degree first of murder the expert qualifications the of an witness is evidence, facts and circum- under of the trial within the sound discretion case, permit would stances law appeal on court and will not be disturbed death, are you to consider a sentence of clear abuse of discretion.” Diaz absent a pen- the death your reservations about law, alty regardless such worked for Ms. Davis testified she has case, and circumstances of facts as Department Police inflicting not consider you would past years. six chemist for forensic penalty? death that, employed she foren- Prior to PARRISH: Yes. MR. State Bu- sic chemist with the Oklahoma added). 60-61)

(Tr. I, (emphasis Investigation for four and one-half reau of moved excuse venireman State Bachelor of Science years. received a She requested an cause, and defense counsel from Degree Chemistry Central State potential ju- opportunity rehabilitate Biology minors University, ror. attended seminars Physics, in 1975. She science, including training at on forensic judge’s questioning established The trial Investigation Bureau of Acade- the Federal juror Parrish would con- potential Quantico, Virginia, hair and fiber my penalty prop- in a imposing sider the death 1985. She also analysis, in at- case, properly er and thus he was excluded 398 references; (4) dye in 1985 failure to conduct a seminar in Oklahoma

tended chromatography testing. gas of fibers and use of on identification microscope, taught by Spe- FBI polarized preserved Only the first contention was cannot Agent cial Howard Edmond. We timely specific appellate review with a say the trial court abused its discretion trial, thus, objection not at we will allowing qualified Ms. Davis to be O.S.1981, See claims. address the other State, witness. See Farris v. expert State, 736 P.2d 546, 2104(A)(1); v. § Wolfe (Okl.Cr.1983); Barnhart 995, 997-98 (Okl.Cr.1987). Appellant objected at State, v. 559 P.2d improperly trial that the summaries over- emphasized testimony, Ms. Davis’ and thus only objection we will consider. this is State, 177, 180 Fitchen v. See 738 P.2d the trial Appellant next contends (Okl.Cr.1987). During period of time permitting give court erred in Ms. Davis concerning that Ms. Davis testified testimony upon expert opinion based data evidence, juror evaluation of the fiber each gained gener procedures that have not given summary which written was acceptance community. al scientific solely purpose utilized for the limited of O.S.1981, relies on 12 2703 for Appellant § assisting jurors following Ms. Davis’ appeal. the first time on He also cites analysis of the extensive fiber evidence. State, (Okl.Cr. v. Driskell 659 P.2d The not into evi- summaries were admitted 1983), held that evidence which “[scientific (Tr. V, dence or taken to the room. at sufficiently have ‘must be established to 1069; VI, 1251-1259) Tr. at find the We gained general acceptance particular in a summary written of extensive fiber evi- (Quoting Frye v. United field....’” dence in the case at bar assisted the trier States, (1923)). App.D.C. 293 F. 1013 by illustrating explaining Ms. of fact The Driskell upheld case the admission of testimony. See McCormick expert Davis’ comparison microscopic of fiber evidence (E. Cleary on Evidence § at 669 3d. by analogizing microscopic comparison it to 1984). record, reject appel- ed. On this we samples, noting majority that a of hair emphasis lant’s contention that undue jurisdictions which have addressed the portion placed on that of the evidence. Id. testimony. issue allow such 355-56. McCormick, supra, at 681. § Cf. generally Annot., See 23 A.L.R. 4th 1199- State, v. 719 P.2d 462-63 Brassfield expert testi admission (Okl.Cr.1986) (jurors’ limited use of tran- microscopic comparison of hair mony on script during playing tape recording not if samples implicitly, and/or fiber has been error). Brown v. See explicitly, approved. State, (Okl.Cr. comparison Concerning admission of hair 751 P.2d State, evidence, v. 1988); appellant specifically complains Webb 746 P.2d (1) (Okl.Cr.1987); failed to collect a mini- Johnson 731 P.2d that Ms. Davis (50) DeVooght (Okl.Cr.1987); fifty mum known reference hairs (Okl.Cr.1986); region body sought from each to be (2) (Okl.Cr. scalp; compared as well as the to ac- Jones 1983). limits of human hair knowledge the com- (3) parisons; possible to eliminate other We first address admission of fiber trailer; origins of hairs found in evidence, comparison about (4) improperly hairs collected vac- (1) use specifically complains of Ms. Davis’ uuming. (2) summary; categorization of of a written foregoing prop- Again, Associa- issues are not the fiber evidence into “Recent us, tions,” erly timely due to the lack of Strong “Recent Associations” and before Associations”; specific objections at trial. Extremely Strong O.S. “Recent 1981, 2104(A)(1); Wolfe, (3) a local P.2d at 547. pep use of club uniforms from Moreover, questions concerning proce- goods a Carl Al- sporting store and from drawn High for known fiber dures and conclusions from Ms. Junior student bert ing the inference which microscopic comparison of hair and should be drawn Davis’ applying specialized knowledge the to on from samples properly raised fiber were Whinery, the 1 L. the cross-examination, facts.” Guide to province and it was the (1985) (Evi- Evidence Code weight to be jury to determine Note). “Testimony dence Subcommittee’s testimony. Dris- given to Davis’ Ms. opinion form of an oth- inference Accordingly, appel- kell, P.2d at 356. objectionable is not be- erwise admissible complaints at the credi- lant’s are directed it an ultimate to be cause embraces issue expert testimony weight of the bility and O.S.1981, of decided the trier fact.” admissibility. Regarding than its rather 2704. “Section 2704 must be read ... allegation by that disturbing with Sections 2703 and 2403 ... acknowledge the limits Davis failed to “Ms. expert give permitted ... should be to [A]n comparisons her of human hair testimo- opinion ... even if ... ... embraces [it] State,” ny Appellant, at for the Brief of an ultimate issue to be decided the trier expressly that conten- the record rebuts fact, requirement providing of it meets testimony, During her Ms. tion. direct opinion of 2702 that the will assist Section microscopic compari- that hair Davis stated determining the trier of fact in a fact conclusions, positive son can lead to two Whinery, supra, issue.” 1 L. at 247-48. finding microscop- that elimination or a An not expert witness should be allowed ic of are alike and characterisitics two hairs opinion express to an that a is defendant per- originated have from the same could innocent, guilty or “the because determina I must son. Ms. Davis then stated “... guilt is tion of the defendant’s or innocence positive it is stress fact that not solely question for the trier of fact. you fingerprint have in a identification ” Carlin, Wash.App. State possible technology ... That is not with the Har P.2d See Gabus v. 1158-59) (Tr. V, at at we have this time.” (Okl.1984). h 255 n. 2 vey, Alt Further, responding to defense counsel’s ough abolished the “ulti Section 2704 cross-examination, question on Ms. Davis rule, mate issue” Sections agreed following with the disclaimer “ operate to bar ‘of 2403 should admission comparison reports by the hair submitted opinions merely would tell the pos- “It hair F.B.I.: is noted that does Whinery, to reach...’” 1 L. what result unique of individ- sess a sufficient number (Evidence supra, Subcommittee’s at microscopic posi- ual characteristics to be Note). particular person to tively associated with a it have been more accurate VI, While would (Tr. of all at exclusion others.” to presence Ms. Davis’ state that J.G.’s for 1351) appellant’s car trailer was consistent evidence, forensic see with the United Franzen, 680 rel. States ex DiGiacomo Next, appellant the trial asserts (7th Cir.1982), F.2d we do not permit court committed reversible error opinion improper was an ex- believe her opinion ting express Ms. to Davis guilt or as to pression of innocence so evidence, all of the on all of this “based Although it constitute reversible error. serological all the fibers ... hairs and expert for the take may “permissible be to Dewey I convinced that J.G. was am step suggesting the infer- the further living in his car.” George Moore’s room and applying from ence which should be drawn (Tr. VI, 1259) at facts,” knowledge specialized to “may give expert An witness a disserta- Whinery, supra, improper it is L. exposition prin- other expert opinion tion or scientific or to for a forensic state case, leaving ciples certainty relevant to the the trier absolute where such is be- apply them to the facts of the art foren- yond present fact ... state opinions McCarty use of not abolished ... sic science. See [but it] permissible Our con- ... will continue imprecise Ms. Davis' expert opinion step suggest- to take the further clusion ly to kill the constitute reversible error is but intended deceased. See Jones did not 634, by State, (Okl.Cr. tressed the fact that she stressed to the v. 660 P.2d 636-37 of her jury the state of the art limitations 1983). Thus, this is not a case within State, v. forensic examination. See Webb Florida, rule of Enmund v. 458 U.S. (Okl.Cr.1987). 207 Ms. Davis 746 P.2d 102 73 1140 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d proba improperly express specific did not (1982), appellant, by holding cited that the bility committed the offense. Eighth prohibits imposition Amendment State, P.2d 1080 Brown v. 751 See penalty upon person the death “who does (Okl.Cr. 1988). Finally, we note that kill, kill, attempt not himself or intend specifically instructed the trial court killing place that a take or that lethal force weight or val to determine for itself what employed.” assignment will be This witness, give expert ue to to the and not to merit. without (O.R. 142). judgment. its own surrender C. Appellant lastly contends the trial court In assignment, appellant his fourth testimony admitting erred in the forensic failed claims State to establish a suffi substantially probative its value was where custody cient chain of to admit State exhib effect, outweighed by prejudicial its trailer, car, its taken from jury. Appellant confusing, and misled the bag found on the roof of Breeden’s essentially reurges prior arguments, Grocery. testimony indicating He cites O.S.1981, making objection 12 under that a on his trailer window was found 2403, which should have been made at § searches, open the time between two trial, appeal. for the time on and not first during there and that were thunderstorms O.S.1981, 2104(A)(1); Wolfe, 12 736 See § bag the week the was discovered. Consid assignment P.2d at This is meritless. articles, ering the nature of the the circum surrounding preservation, stances their B. contamination, altering the likelihood assignment, appel his second In tampering, say we cannot the trial court lant was insufficient to claims evidence in admitting abused its discretion the exhib killed, aforethought malice or that he show State, DeVooght its. See v. 722 P.2d kill, attempted killing or intended that a (Okl.Cr.1986). concerning Doubts place. presented take The State both di preservation go of the exhibit to its evidence, rect and circumstantial and there weight, admissibility. and not its Fixico proper re fore we believe the standard of State, (Okl.Cr.1987). P.2d any is whether rational trier of fact view assignment merit. This is without could find the essential elements of the charged beyond crime a reasonable doubt. State, Spuehler v. 203- See D. (Okl.Cr.1985). reviewing A court must error, assignment In his sixth accept all inferences and credi reasonable appellant argues the trial abused its court bility support choices that tend to the ver admitting discretion it State Exhibit 42. State, Washington dict. See photograph accurately depicted the This (Okl.Cr.1986). The medical exam on the face of the de cuts and abrasions testimony, detailing the iner’s bruises ceased, testimony corroborated including scratches tó J.G.’s neck a bruised examiner, unduly medical and was

larynx, perpetrator indicated that the stran gruesome. agree cannot that its ad We Having gled her to death hand. re an abuse of discretion. mission constituted record, viewed the we believe State O.S.1981, 2403; State, Castro presented evidence from which a sufficient (Okl.Cr.1987); DeVooght, P.2d beyond rational trier of fact could find doubt that deliberate- 722 P.2d at 713. reasonable partially pro partially by E. se and counsel. See Peters v. P.2d error, assignment of In his seventh right is no to a There mean- that comments appellant claims ingful attorney-client relationship free In deprived him of a fair trial. prosecutor animosity. from See Hale v. error, of fundamental we will the absence (Okl.Cr.1988). Appellant P.2d has objected to the comments not not consider demonstrating to meet his failed burden Huntley v. at trial. See performance resulting a deficient both (Okl.Cr.1988). 1134, agree the 1136 We prejudice. Washington, v. See Strickland attempted not to prosecutor should have 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 80 by asking sympathy evoke for victim (1984); State, L.Ed.2d 674 Fisher v. 736 parents of the deceased could whether 1003, (Okl.Cr.1987). P.2d 1011-14 her, by response to statements ever visit appellant regarding prison visi relatives IV. State,

tation. v. 757 P.2d See Stewart (Okl.Cr.1988). Nor it do we believe PUNISHMENT Macy for comment that proper Mr. to only one in the courtroom Judge “the A. being hasn’t accused [defense counsel] assignment, appellant In his third claims State, 663 P.2d crook.” See Black v. instructing erred by jury the trial court objec Defense counsel’s sentiment, to sympathy, preju allow or foregoing tions to the two comments deliberations, to enter into dice its sustained, jury should have been and the refusing requested his instruction. We re However, disregard to them. admonished given this ject contention for reasons prosecutors’ are while some of the remarks (Okl.Cr. State, Fox v. condoned, they not to we do not believe 1989), adopting the Fifth Circuit’s decision to grossly improper were so warrant Butler, (5th Byrne v. 847 F.2d 1135 Castro, 745 reversal or modification. See Cir.1988). 402; Fisher, P.2d at 736 P.2d at 1009. B.

F. brief, error, pro eighth assignment of supplemental appel In his se In his urges as his sentence is lant contends he was denied effective death inval “heinous, atrocious, trial, trial id cru sistance counsel because because aggravating has in prompt failed conduct a investi el” circumstance been counsel to funding arbitrary in an manner.1 In gation, terpreted failed to move for of de (Okl. meaningful P.2d experts, fense failed to have a v. Stouffer Cr.1987) agreed (Opinion Rehearing), we attorney-client relationship appellant, with keep prior to out criminal the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion Cart and failed his with (10th during Ap Maynard, 822 F.2d 1477 stage wright record the first of trial. Cir.1987), support aff'd, Cartwright, each pellant Maynard has failed to 356, 108 100 L.Ed.2d allegations with relevant citations of au 486 U.S. S.Ct. (1988), past our construction of the thority, appropriate references to the atrocious, heinous, O.S.1981, ag or cruel” App., “especially Ch. record. Rules of was unconstituion Appeals, gravating Rule circumstance the Court Criminal limited 3.5(A) (C). vague. expressly this Appellant ally has not shown a & Stouffer to to, resulting cases where right prejudice aggravating nor circumstance substantial the death of the of, expert there is evidence that from the lack assistance. See (Okl. preceded by torture or serious victim was Munson 742 P.2d at Cr.1988). Stouffer, Appellant right appear physical had abuse. no physical agrees abuse” standard as asser "torture or serious 1. While this writer tion, (Okl. see Foster v. matter of stare decisis. Cr.1989) Concurring), yield (Specially I expressly penalty, the death as it stage, jury was in- dates During the second impris life provides Uni- for the alternative of in accordance with Oklahoma structed (OUJI-CR) recognize a State cannot en Jury Instruction-Criminal onment. We form (1981), hei- phrase “especially provides statutory act a scheme which for nous, atrocious, directed to or cruel” was mandatory sentence and fails to death the death of the victim those crimes where allow for individualized consideration of preceded by torture of the victim or mitigating factors. v. Shu See Sumner (O.R. 152) J.G., a physical serious abuse. man, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. in a twelve-year-old girl, was abducted (1987); Louisiana, L.Ed.2d 56 Roberts v. lot, hit in the face as she screamed parking 1993, 52 L.Ed.2d 637 431 U.S. 97 S.Ct. car, in a bound duct help, forced (1977). Clearly, penalty death Oklahoma’s ankles, wrists, thighs, and tape on her prohibi scheme does not fall within such throat, taken to trailer where An must choose be tion. indicated he cut her circumstantial evidence imprisonment, or life O.S. tween death her, ultimately off of pep club uniform 701.9(A), one must find at least § by strangulation, possibly asphyxia died of prior impos to aggravating circumstance smothering. When her combined with 701.11, sentence, O.S.1981, ing a death § discovered, panties body were was any mitigating circum and must consider thighs, was to her and her bra rolled down defendant, 21 presented by stances the O.S. Choi, Dr. pushed up off her breasts. Chaik Here, juror each stated he 701.10. § examiner, the medical found scratches punish or she could consider both possible face and neck. He on the victim’s bruises ments, aggra found the existence of three neck, including the said the marks on circumstances, mitigating vating and that larynx, indicated the deceased was bruised outweigh aggravating circumstanc did not by hand. Dr. also found strangled Choi es. scratches and bruises on the vic- various arms, wrist, right leg and lower tim’s left V. requirement Applying the back. Stouffer pre- that the death of the victim must be REVIEW MANDATORY SENTENCE abuse, physical ceded torture or serious foregoing sufficient to we find the evidence A. support jury’s finding that the murder O.S.Supp.1987, Pursuant to atrocious, heinous, especially or cruel was (1) 701.13(C),we must determine whether § O.S.1981, doubt. 21 beyond a reasonable imposed death was under the sentence of 701.12(4). Delap v. 440 So.2d § passion, prejudice, any or the influence of (Fla.1983). factor, (2) arbitrary other and whether jury’s finding of an supports evidence C. aggravating circumstance. See Munson v. assignment, appellant In his tenth O.S.1981, 701.9(A), is uncon contends § operates mandate stitutional because it to

juries return a death sentence. He to argument that he was

makes the novel record, cannot Having reviewed the we death due to the improperly sentenced to by passion, influenced say the perception that so-called “life” sen public’s any arbitrary factor con- prejudice, or other life, really mean because tences do not 701.13(C)(1). trary O.S.Supp.1987, to 21 § parole. eligible remain such inmates legitimately con jurors He who are claims being permit a defendant not cerned about convictions, prior felony Appellant’s six society left no ted return to are to necessarily use involved the except Appel most of which adequate alternative death. supported by not, or such was not, argue or threat of force lant does indeed he could testimony, 701.9(A), stage were sufficient to automatically man- second that Section appropriateness that of the finding appellant that discusses jury’s support However, I felony penalty in this case. do of a involv- death previously convicted necessary not find that it is now to com- or threat of violence to ing the use 701.12(1). prior O.S.1981, pre- pare the results of this case with We person. § perform sup- proportionali- evidence to decisions and thus viously found sufficient heinous, atrocious, ty I the trial especially review. would AFFIRM port in Part court. aggravating circumstance cruel O.S.1981, 701.12(4).

IV(B). Consider- § past criminal ing appellant’s extensive LUMPKIN, Judge, concurs in result. violence, involving acts record various judgments I concur that and sen- Burns, Dr. testimony by Cecil and the Appellant’s tences each of the convic- if released from psychologist, that clinical tions should be affirmed. good the chance was prison Appellant’s allega I agree While that the violent criminal continue to commit would regarding tions error issuance acts, find sufficient we the evidence with execution of the search warrants are probability of a support existence merit, join I cannot out the Court’s would commit criminal acts of analysis Appellant’s article claims under continuing that would constitute violence II, section Oklahoma Constitution. O.S.1981, 701.12(7). society. threat previous ignores The Court our decisions P. 538 Okl.Cr. DeGraff v. B. State, (1909), Long v. P.2d 915 and 706 members of this Court hold that Two addition, (Okl.Cr.1985). In finds the Court longer no neces proportionality review is Merry v. pursuant that to the decision in State, v. sary. Smith 737 P.2d 1217 State, (Okl.Cr.1988), the 766 P.2d 1377 compared I have the sen Aguilar-Spinelli standard utilized must be cases, see imposed previous tence herein concerning reviewing in claims of error State, v. 745 P.2d nn. Castro concerning questions state constitutional (Okl.Cr.1987), including the recent cases 4 questions, states search or seizure but then (Okl.Cr. State, v. P.2d 1151 of Mann 749 question that does not involve a case “[t]his State, (Okl.Cr. v. 1988), Hale 750 P.2d 130 reliability credibility concerning the State, (Okl. Rojem v. 1988), P.2d 753 359 informant, such as undisclosed State, 753 Cr.1988), Brown v. P.2d Spinelli Aguilar presented and State, Bromley v. (Okl.Cr.1988), P.2d McCann, 434; Luk cases. P.2d at State, v. (Okl.Cr.1988), Stewart State, (Okl.Cr. er v. State, v. (Okl.Cr.1988), Munson P.2d 388 1972). ensure claim is meritless.” To This (Okl.Cr.1988), McCarty v. 758 P.2d 324 presented proper review of the issues State, (Okl.Cr.1988), 765 P.2d 1215 to its Appellant should adhere the Court (Okl.Cr. State, v. Brennan Long, Tosh DeGraff, previous decisions 1988), proper. find to be the sentence State, (Okl.Cr.1987), Dixon v. 736 P.2d 527 State, (Okl.Cr.1987), Mor v. P.2d 942 Therefore, and sentences judgments State, gan v. (Okl.Cr.1987), AFFIRMED. are (Okl.Cr. v. Foster 742 P.2d 1131 1987), (Okl.Cr. Payne 744 P.2d 196 BRETT, J., concurs. 1987), P.2d 831 and Lister LUMPKIN, LANE, V.P.J., J., (Okl.Cr.1988), allegations of and review the in result. concur pursuant to the criteria set forth error Gates, Illinois v. U.S. 103 S.Ct. JOHNSON, J., recused. A review of 76 L.Ed.2d 527 LANE, Judge, Presiding Vice allegations of error evidence concurring results: reveals Gates standard accordance with Appel is sufficient reached affidavit I concur the results relating to the issuance of claims majority, including part lant’s decision subsequent warrants and the searches are

without merit. PALMER,

Raymond Appellant, Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE

No. F-86-616. Appeals

Court of Criminal of Oklahoma.

Feb.

Rehearing April Denied

Case Details

Case Name: Moore v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Jan 17, 1990

Citation: 788 P.2d 387

Docket Number: F-85-668

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.