Scott v. State

KAUGER, V.C.J., concurs result. WATT, JJ.,

OPALA, SUMMERS and judgment.

concur

Sidney SCOTT, Appellant, Soren Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE F-90-1195.

No. Appeals Criminal Oklahoma.

Feb. April

Rehearing Denied Allen, Mowery,

Larry Gene F. Checotah (at trial) Walker, Appel- W. Carol Asst. Defender, (on Indigent appeal), late Norman appellant. for Barris, Giulioli, III, Atty., Tom Dist. O.R. Atty., Atty., Asst. Dist. Office of Dist. (at trial), Loving, Eufaula Susan Brimer Atty. A. Diane Blal- Gen. Oklahoma and (on ock, Gen., Atty. City Asst. Oklahoma appeal), appellee.

OPINION STRUBHAR, Judge: Scott, Sidney Appellant, Soren was tried jury the District of McIntosh F-90-34, stayed the Hon- He a few minutes and returned County, No. before Case Later, LeMasters, Jr., people several saw trailer. Associate Dis- orable J.M. possession take of a lock blade knife which Judge. Appellant was convicted of trict misplaced got then (21 he had earlier. Degree O.S.Supp. in the First Murder fight Bishop into a with and announced he (2) 701.7(A)). § found two The giving leaving. He said decedent was aggravating circumstances and recommended a man him a ride home. McDonald saw who penalty. the death Appellant get into dece- could have been 15, 1990, February Appellant and sev- On truck with him. The two drove north dent’s Quinton to the eral friends1 drove from away from the motel. A short time later the Dean Monks was Brooken Cove motel where Stigler. others returned to staying. group had at least two cases of early next morn- Decedent was found beer, They tequila, whiskey. arrived at ing a few miles north of the motel. His began the motel after dark and to drink. throat was cut and he had bled to death. He During evening Seymour and Dean lying partially in the off road ditch. parking walked across the motel lot Monks signs struggle There were of a and his wallet They joined play pool. a to were to beer bar checkbook, he car- missing. was The where McDonald, shortly by the the others. Jack cash, empty ried his was found at the murder owner, Mattocks, decedent, Henry were and Decedent’s truck was found a few scene. Decedent, also in the bar. who was over rag the scene. A miles east of murder old, sixty years mingled group. with the As gas in tank and the front half of the stuck the did, pool bought often decedent beers and he truck, cab, including the had been burned. games group. Ap- in the for the While bar and 7:00 a.m. LaDonna Ford Between 6:30 Rinker, nephew, that pellant confided to way Bobby Gray Appellant on their and saw fifty he needed about one hundred dollars walking the to work. He was south on road ($150.00) pay to a citation he received earlier Quinton. that week. He also indicated decedent was carrying money going that he to do and “was 16, 1990, February Appel- After noon on get it.” When McDonald what he had to rejoined group previous lant the from the p.m. group evening’s party. closed the bar around 11:00 the Rinker in He first told joined group to the that private to Monks’ room. Decedent and then announced went back home, he had killed the “old man” for eleven dol- McDonald in his trailer located beside Describing Appellant said lars. the murder bar, the to discuss some business. struggled then cut him he first with decedent leave, Preparing to discovered he decedent “flopping” him in a “from ear to ear” and left had a flat tire. He knocked on the door gasping Then he took dece- ditch for breath. anyone group if Monks’ room to see wallet and drove his truck a few miles dent’s change Boggs, Sey- help could him the tire. by sticking raga where he burned it east mour, agreed Edwin Monks and Dean Monks gas walking Appel- home. tank before help him. Decedent returned to Mc- sexually he aroused lant also stated became get change for a ten dollar Donald’s trailer to Appellant displayed killing decedent. when give the men five dollars for bill so he could him returned to the knife which had been According McDonald dece- helping him. mur- previous night and declared it was the dollars him at this time. dent had eleven on dispose weapon. der He asked the others to began watching decedent from a McDonald that had been with them of it and to lie he alright. party. to make sure he was night window after the He then the entire days. disappeared couple for a joined changed, decedent After his tire was party Appellant’s request a time. McDonald At Edwin Monks for short pond strip knife into a mine where check threw the walked to Monks’ room to on decedent. they by Bishop, Seymour, joined Ramona Coo- Boggs, and Edwin were Janie 1. Keith Ronald Rinker, Appellant. Stigler per, Quinton. Dean Monks and There Neal Monks drove from Combs, Welch, McGechie, and Col- by Jurors police. it later first recovered respond affirmatively from to this police spoke time with the individuals lins not did they Thereupon all said had been trial asked party question.3 court night. up with them the entire Later each one question a to determine them each follow began police hap- more of what lay to tell the they feelings their whether could aside They eventually nearly pened. recounted required duty apply and the law as their identical stories of both events jurors. as 15th and statements on the 16th. Welch, this, you Let me ask Ms. if Court: Monks, Rinker, Seymour, Boggs, Edwin you a that beyond found reasonable doubt Ford, Gray Cooper, Bishop, testified guilty in the defendant is of Murder at trial. State evidence, Degree if First under the case, and circumstances of the

facts RELATING TO ISSUES you a sen- permit law would to consider JURY SELECTION death; your are reservations tence of penalty strong so about death proposition Ap In his of error third law, and the regardless of the the facts pellant argues he was sentenced case, you circumstances of would impose predisposed to the death sentence. penalty? impose the death He contends the trial court erred its indi just really I I don’t know. Juror Welch: members, excusing vidual voir dire of venire don’t know. jurors prospective to al of four refusal opportunity an to reha low defense counsel Well, you that, only Court: can answer general voir and bilitate them. After dire Welch; you. can’t answer that for Ms. We cause, jurors for acceptance the of the but I don’t I could. Juror Welch: believe peremptory chal before either exercised side lenges, the court individual trial conducted you ques- Let ask the second Court: me jurors they voir of the on whether could dire tion, you beyond if a found reasonable impose penalty. the He asked each death guilty that the of doubt defendant juror substantially prospective the same Degree in First and if under Murder the question: evidence, the and the facts circumstances case, permit you of the law the would case, in this is

Mr. Scott the defendant death; your a consider sentence of are in charged as I have said with Murder the penalty death reservations about the so Degree. you guilty If him First find of law, Murder, you strong, regardless that of facts Degree then will have First case, you of duty punishment in this case. and circumstances would assess Degree punishment for First impose penalty? The Murder not the death death, imprisonment is or life with- either Sir, McGechie: I couldn’t make that Juror imprisonment; parole, life it will be out just I somebody about else’s life. decision up jury impose and to the to assess couldn’t. punishment. In a case where the law and you, Alright. Court: Let me ask Mr. warrant, case, proper in a could evidence Combs; you beyond if found reasonable you, doing your con- without violence guilty science, that the defendant was of agree imposing to a doubt verdict in if Degree the First under penalty?2 death Murder quoted question I don’t think so. I am not sure. trial asked the Juror Welch: court No, sir, questions Substantially Welch. similar Juror McGechie: I couldn't. Juror McGechie, were asked Jurors Combs Col- punish- ... I don’t believe in the Juror Combs: lins. penalty. ment on the death Juror Collins: No. Juror Welch: I think so. you any Do have reservations about Court: that?

1289 evidence, argues next the trial facts and circumstances case, you permit excusing the law would court abused its discretion death; your are prospective jurors consider a sentence of cause the four because penalty the death so reservations about they gave equivocal up answers to the follow law, regardless strong, that of the facts questions. Removal for cause of even one ease, you would and circumstances venire member who has conscientious scru impose penalty? the death not ples against penalty but is never death scruples theless able to set aside those No, I guess I I —if Juror Combs: don’t penalty of death and therefore consider is my on it I will turn in best knowl- serve eligible error of to serve on the If that edge of what it should be. answers magnitude subject constitutional question. Mississip analysis. Gray error harmless you; you if Alright. Let me ask Court: 2057, 648, 668, 2045, pi, 107 S.Ct. 95 beyond a reasonable doubt that the found (1987). reviewing L.Ed.2d When guilty defendant was of Murder jurors potential cases where the answers of evidence, Degree and if under the First equivocal are unclear or this Court tradition case, and circumstances of the facts ally impressions the trial defers to the you permit would to consider a sen- law poten court who can better assess whether a death; your tence of are reservations juror tial would unable to fulfill his or her be penalty strong, the death so about (Okl.Cr. State, oath. Allen v. 871 P.2d law, regardless of the the facts and circum- State, 1994); Simpson v. 827 P.2d case, impose you stances of the would not (Okl.Cr.1992); Duvall v. penalty? the death — denied, cert. U.S. know; really just -, (1992); I I Juror Collins: don’t 121 L.Ed.2d 161 (Okl. know if I could or not. don’t Battenfield (OkI.Cr. denied, Cr.1991), reh’g 826 P.2d 612 recently This addressed the manner 1992), 112 S.Ct. U.S. qualifying in which trial courts conduct death (1992). Equivocal 117 L.Ed.2d 632 an Mayes voir dire swers, by prospective given such as those the (Okl.Cr.1994). Mayes In this held in case, jurors present in the are sufficient to pen quiries imposition whether of the death juror a for cause. See Carter v. dismiss juror’s alty violence to a conscience would do (Okl.Cr. State, 1234, P.2d 1243-1244 879 confusing and error. Id. at 1297. are best State, 418, 1994); 701 P.2d 422-423 Banks v. However, by up the error can be cured follow denied, 1036,112 (Okl.Cr.1985),cert. 502 U.S. potential questions properly which assess the State, 883, 787; v. 116 L.Ed.2d Dutton S.Ct. ability personal feelings juror’s to set aside (Okl.Cr.1984). 1134, After 674 P.2d 1138 held that and follow the law. Id. This Court surrounding considering the entire record up question by the trial the follow asked jurors, prospective of the four the exclusion language virtually identi Mayes, court in appropriate to the trial giving deference case, present in the cured the cal to that decision, the we hold the exclusion of court’s Accordingly any error was cured. error.4 Allen, prospective jurors was not error. four (Okl. State, 729, P.2d 732 Salazar v. 852 See 91; Battenfield, at 559. P.2d at 816 P.2d 871 (Okl.Cr. denied, Cr.1993), reh’g 517 859 P.2d State, 984, 1993); P.2d also Stiles v. 829 See (Okl.Cr.1992) Finally, Appellant claims the trial your (holding to “violence

988 it refused to allow defense acceptable phrasing). court erred when an conscience” death, your Mayes a are reserva- to consider sentence trial court in asked: 4. The that, regard- penalty way. death such you simply tions about the let me ask it this If Are —or law, you beyond a doubt that the found reasonable the circumstances of the the facts and less of guilty de- of murder in first case, Defendant gree, inflicting you would not consider evidence, and cir- under the facts and if penalty? death Id. at 1297. permit you of the case the law would cumstances 1290 407, 441, 488-489, 418, 456 jurors. 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d prospective

counsel rehabilitate the States, 84, (1963); Opper United extent of voir dire rests v. The manner and 164, 101, 92, 158, L.Ed. 108 75 S.Ct. 99 within the of the trial court. discretion State, 384, Banks, (1954); proper v. 701 When' the Williamson P.2d cert, - denied, (Okl.Cr.1991), U.S. questions by 396 been asked the trial court have -, 1592, (1992), 118 L.Ed.2d prospective jurors 112 S.Ct. 308 to determine whether can denied, -U.S.-, 2325, case, reh’g 112 deny not S.Ct. sit in the it is error defense (1992); State, v. 693 119 L.Ed.2d 244 Stout opportunity counsel an to rehabilitate denied, 617, (Okl.Cr.1984),' State, jurors. P.2d cert. 622-623 excused Moore 1022,105 3489, (Okl.Cr.1990), denied, 623 472 87 L.Ed.2d 498 U.S. cert. U.S. (1985). (1990); his confessions 112 L.Ed.2d 182 contends 111 S.Ct. (Okl.Cr. 1349,1361 February 16, made to State witnesses on Stouffer 1987), by P.2d cert. are uncorroborated direct forensic aff'd scene, him at placing evidence the murder 108 S.Ct. denied U.S. — (1988), are This and hence inadmissible. Court has L.Ed.2d U.S. (1992). -, sufficiency evi recently 112 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 217 addressed part upon to show the trial abused out of fails court dence based a defendant’s its In discretion. court Fontenot statements. (OM.Cr.1994) stated, we prior adoption reaffirm this Court’s [We] TO ISSUES RELATING GUILT- requires only that of the standard which INNOCENCE supported by in- confession be “substantial error, proposition Ap In his first dependent which would tend evidence pellant contends insufficient evidence exists ...”6 ... [its] establish trustworthiness support and death his conviction sentence. present indepen case substantial Specifically, Appellant argues: his conviction presented by dent evidence the State improperly his out sentence are based on Appellant’s establish trustworthiness confessions5; as of court the confessions re McDonald, by last confessions. When seen by are not lated State witnesses corroborated heading left motel north accom evidence; decedent does other the evidence panied by a man who matched pass proof heightened standard of re general description. found Decedent was quired in death cases. This Court reviews partially north of the off the road and motel sufficiency of the evidence to determine ditch, whether, viciously in a throat slashed. reviewing after the evidence separate two light any mortal wound was made most rational favorable fact cuts. The examiner testified dece trier of could have found the essential medical charged beyond immediately and probably of the dent did die elements crimes State, Spuehler struggle v. have reasonable doubt. would continued breath and (Okl.Cr.1985). losing until He testi P.2d consciousness. further

fied other cuts and bruises on decedent could struggle prior It have the result of a is well settled a conviction been solely upon Decedent small cannot be obtained based death. carried a amount he of the defendant. cash in his checkbook and a wallet when uncorroborated confession States, money by but no or Wong was last seen McDonald Sun United 622-623; 396; Stout, Appellant to and confessed described mur- Goforth Rinker; State, private (OkI.Cr.1982). at least three times: in with der Fon- In group; walking while tenot, 881P.2dat77, before the entire Bishop, Cooper, with rejected this rule Seymour and Edwin Monks. requiring proof predi- corpus delicti as a corroborating a court cate for defendant's out of Appellant develop State their Both statements. proposition upon arguments on this based Williamson, corpus delicti See P.2d at rule. Upon at the murder scene. Dece review of the record there wallet was found any is sufficient evidence that rational trier partially found burned a few dent’s truck was Appellant guilty of fact could find of Murder rag of the murder scene. A had miles east Degree beyond in the First a reasonable placed gas in the tank and the cab was been proved Appel doubt. The evidence State’s Lastly, Appellant completely burned. was Further, lant had a motive to rob decedent. morning early walking the next home seen person he was the last with seen decedent the direction of the murder. This evi from walking and was seen from the direction of corroborates the confessions dence morning. impor the murder the next Most Therefore, morning. the next his con made tantly, repeatedly killing. he confessed to the fessions, witnesses, as related State were discrepancies While minor exist between the Fontenot, properly admitted. 881 P.2d at witnesses, testimony they of certain State all 80; Opper, 348 U.S. at 75 S.Ct. at substantially story regard related the same L.Ed.2d at 108. ing Appellant. the confession of The infor confessions, Appellant provided in mation his Appellant next contends his confes any before of the knew of witnesses properly sions were not corroborated be circumstances, virtually crime or its credibility testifying cause the State wit developed identical to the evidence from the In nesses was issue. essence he contends Therefore, proposition crime scene.7 this lying the State’s witnesses were and hence error is denied. they his could.not corroborate confessions. Appellant confuses with credi corroboration ISSUES RELATING TO EXAMINATION above, bility. As noted confes OF WITNESSES properly sions were corroborated. Once sub proposition Appel- In his second of error independent presented stantial evidence was in limiting lant contends the trial court erred properly the witnesses could questioning of Rinker in defense counsel’s testify morning told them the what stages both the first and second of trial. after the murder. Whether or not to believe sought stage the first defense counsel up jury these witnesses was to the who could question an in an Rinker about arrest8 effort judge credibility upon properly their based testify- expose bias or motivation for his testimony on their and demeanor the stand. ing. In the second defense counsel (Okl.Cr. Worcester impeach sought to Rinker’s truthfulness with 1983); Humphrey v. juvenile Appellant ar- criminal record. (Okl.Cr.1969). It from is obvious the verdict gues testimony indispensable Rinker’s jury that the chose to believe and sentence postulates He his conviction and sentence. despite witnesses defense coun State’s credibility have been Rinker’s would de- attempts expose on cross-examination to sel’s stroyed for the trial on cross examination but credibility. Appellant pro lack of biases and rulings.9 court’s authority persuasive reason to vides no province undisputed on this issue invade defendants are to be It expose to cross examine witnesses to we decline to do so. allowed higher beyond argues presented requires a 7.Appellant the evidence a standard than reason- also guilt-innocence phase heightened proof of a able doubt in did not meet the standard of cases, penalty citing death trial. required Carolina, v. in death Woodson North 280, 305, 2978, 2991, 428 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 944, (1976) and Caldwell v. 49 L.Ed.2d 961 Mis- after the murder. The 8. Rinker was arrested 320, 340-341, 2633, Rinker, against sissippi, charge 472 U.S. 105 S.Ct. not reveal the record does 2645-2646, 231, (1985). charge pending only disposition was of the 86 L.Ed.2d 246-247 trial. at the time of Appellant these cases. Woodson dic- misreads imposition penalty requires of death tates of the reliability heightened Throughout from arbitrariness. made free trial defense counsel re- 9. prosecutorial proof, peated comments cal- other than testi- Caldwell addresses statements that no Appellant jury's responsibili- mony, to the murder. Such reduce the of linked culated to sense crime scene evi- ty imposing penalty. was not true. As noted above for the death Neither case 1292 2401; O.S.1981, § 12 sec-

bias, v. relevant under prejudice motivation. Delaware or ond, 12 Arsdall, 673, 678-679, is the evidence admissible under 475 106 S.Ct. Van U.S. O.S.1981, 2402; third, though 674, § even 1431, 1435, (1986); 89 L.Ed.2d 683 admissible, 12 under Alaska, 308, 316, should it be excluded 94 S.Ct. Davis v. 415 U.S. O.S.1981, § 2403. 347, (1974); 1105, 1110, 354 Beck 39 L.Ed.2d (Okl.Cr.1991). 385, In 824 P.2d 389 also, Abel, 824 P.2d at 389. 469 U.S. See Appellant the trial present case contends 468-469, 53, at at at 105 83 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. ques of preclusion of his desired line court’s Carolina, 458; P.2d at 839 First, ways. in he tioning error two legitimate of area of contends foreclosure a a fails show Sixth his inquiry examination violated on cross stage in the first of Amendment violation right of United States v. confrontation. See of Rinker’s trial. Evidence arrest was (10th 568, Cir.1991), Lonedog, 929 F.2d 570 As to the fact situation of this case. relevant 164, denied, 854, 112 116 502 U.S. S.Ct. cert. existed noted above sufficient evidence (1991); Jorgen L.Ed.2d 129 United States prove Appellant murdered decedent. (10th son, Cir.1971), 516, 451 F.2d 519 denied, 922, 959, 405 92 S.Ct. 30 U.S. However, prevent it was error (1972). Second, L.Ed.2d 793 he contends purposes inquiry into arrest for of Rinker’s limiting in examination the extent cross of trial. Both second this manner was an abuse of trial court’s alleged and found in the circumstances discretion. part testimony. in on Rinker’s case10 relied Appellant’s robbery regarding He testified reaching its the trial decision In ac motive the murder Rink- charges pending were court noted conjunction in his and statements with tions a er had not been convicted as result society. Clearly, continuing being a threat it consistently have held is arrest. While we any testify was bias or motivation to relevant impeach improper to former witness with on these issues. arrests, 202, McDonald v. 206 correctly points out a confrontation clause viola When permissible inquiry prior into is arrests must certain tion occurs this Court consider 663, expose bias. Carolina the error is factors determine whether Beck, (Okl.Cr.1992); 824 Beck, beyond a doubt. harmless reasonable Abel, 469 388-389. See also United States v. 390. See Delaware v. Van .also 469, 45, 53, 465, 83 L.Ed.2d U.S. Arsdall, 673, 684, 1431, 106 S.Ct. U.S. (1984). Appel This not mean does 686; Chapman 89 L.Ed.2d v. Cali is to cross examine lant entitled witnesses 824, 828, fornia, 87 S.Ct. Beck, prior As about arrests. we stated (1967), reh’g L.Ed.2d ruling evidentiary The trial court on U.S. 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d (1967). pur- present case are: regarding issues bias evidence for the factors testimony; impeachment, importance poses and this Court Rinker’s cumulative; rulings, testimony his reviewing shall determine: whether those first, presence the fact situation such that or absence of evidence corroborat ing contradicting testimony on materi- impeach a showing of bias to witness is or alleged Ap- Appellant's State two circum- dencc corroborated confessions. pur- pellant for the made numerous at trial stances: the murder was committed further allusions avoiding preventing people present pose or eight a lawful arrest that the other in Monks’ 701.12(5); decedent, O.S.1981, prosecution, § and the conspired to blame him for room killed murder, essentially Appellant probability that would at a of a lied trial. This existence Appellant present con- credibility criminal acts of violence that would issue and fails to commit continuing society, persuasive authority to stitute a threat to 21 O.S. or reason invade the 1981, 701.12(7). § province matter. of on this of examination trial points; al the extent cross The court did not allow defense permitted; impeach and the overall otherwise counsel Rinker’s truthfulness strength juvenile during of the State’s case. with his record the second

stage. Defense counsel informed the trial claim, Contrary Appellant’s Rink- necessary court such evidence was to show primary indispens er was not the State’s or propensity Rinker had a to lie and fabricate. stage. able witness the second The State prevented questioning, The trial court such presented support finding other evidence to a emphasizing juvenile that records are never aggravating circumstance to avoid ruling admissible. This was error. The prosecution. stage In the first of trial Edwin 2609(D) O.S.1981, plain language § of Appellant group Monks testified told he juvenile generally states that records are not got Cooper eleven dollars from decedent. However, Appellant admissible.12 correct as Appellant she testified asked whether it was states, ly may trial courts criminal cases Appel worth eleven to kill dollars decedent. upon proper showing allow such evidence a group struggled lant told the he with dece presented trial counsel. When with de prosecutor dent. In the second request fense counsel’s the trial court should Appellant’s cross examined mother about a option have considered the to admit Rinker’s Appellant days prior, citation received two to juvenile permitted records and defense coun the murder. She confirmed re showing sel to make a the records would be carrying ceived a citation for a concealed admissible. Failure to do so resulted in a weapon. This evidence indicates Appellant’s right violation of to confront wit had a motive to rob and did rob decedent.11 Arsdall, against nesses him. Van testimony of these witness was corrobo 678-679, 89 L.Ed.2d at rating testimony. and cumulative to Rinker’s 683; Davis, 415 U.S. at 94 S.Ct. at Finally, defense counsel had wide latitude 354; Beck, 39 L.Ed.2d at P.2d at during stages both of trial to cross examine all witnesses about their truthfulness and independent After an examination of testifying. motives for Therefore this error preclusion (cid:127)the entire we record conclude of was harmless. inquiry into these records was harmless be yond a doubt. note the trial reasonable We the second On issue of prevent court did not defense counsel from circumstance, continuing society, threat asking Rinker whether had made deal with Appellant again argues testimony Rinker’s prosecution expected to receive lenien indispensable jury’s and vital to the find- cy testimony. for his Nor did defense coun test, ing. Applying the Beck we find Rink- proof concerning ques make an sel offer possible er’s arrest and bias or motivation anticipated responses tions to be asked and proving not relevant to this Through the trial Moreover, to assist court’s decision. proved, circumstance. the State stages exhibits, extensive cross examination in both through various witnesses and placed trial defense counsel Rinker’s lack of Appellant had killed decedent in a vicious effectively. Finally, manner, credibility very at issue participated prior had unrelated acts, testimony Rinker’s was corroborated oth criminal and had threatened witnesses prior er witnesses who related numer while incarcerated to trial. This evi- following prove Appellant is sufficient to is a ous confessions and actions dence society. continuing threat murder. See infra. however, Appellant's may, juve- central nal case allow evidence of a motive intent are proving Appellant attempt adjudication murdered in an of a witness other than the nile prosecution robbing decedent. avoid arrest or accused if conviction of the offense would be See credibility to attack the of an adult admissible infra. that admission in evi- and the court is satisfied O.S.1981, 2609(D) § 12. 12 reads: necessary for a fair determination of the dence is juvenile adjudications Evidence is not ad- guilt or innocence. issue Code. The court in a crimi- missible under this

1294 State, 707, 876 P.2d

Appellant to show this Court. Malone v. likewise fails (Okl.Cr.1994) pre and cited there- by 715-716 cases the trial court abused discretion its in. venting inquiry pending into Rinker’s either juvenile The court arrest records. trial or appli- reviewing cases and the After these place limits examination. Van can on cross circumstance, aggravating the cation of this 678-679,

Arsdall, 475 at 106 S.Ct. at U.S. phrase probability “the of a that existence 1435, at The extent and 89 L.Ed.2d criminal acts of the defendant would commit scope cross is left to the of examination continuing a that would constitute violence discretion of the trial court. This Court will society” to is clear and does not re- threat not disturb trial court’s decision absent quire phrase The further definition. directs in resulting prejudice clear manifest to abuse in to conduct examine the accused’s State, 159, v. 844 P.2d the defendant. Castro he was as well offense of which convicted - 170 U.S. relating as other relevant conduct to -, 135, (1993); 126 114 L.Ed.2d 98 S.Ct. safety society of as a whole. Id. at 716. (Okl.Cr. State, Dunham v. 762 P.2d 973 State,- (Okl.Cr. 1988); Hall v. 698 P.2d 36 Appellant next contends State 1985). to a Appellant fails show clear abuse prove aggravating to circumstance failed prejudice of discretion or that manifest re pur for the that “the murder was committed the trial court’s Con sulted from decision. preventing pose avoiding or a lawful arrest of contention, trary Appellant’s the State’s 701.12(5). O.S.1981, § prosecution.” or 21 solely dependent case was not on Rinker’s stages in He claims the State’s evidence both above, testimony. As noted sufficient evi prove aggravating cir of trial failed to this presented, through testimony dence was and cumstance. evidence, Appellant crime scene convict of degree first Sufficient evidence also murder. support finding ag To a of this prove aggravating circum existed to both gravating must a circumstance there be Finally, the trial court’s stances. See infra. crime, murder, separate predicate from the beyond ruling erroneous of law was harmless for which the defendant seeks to avoid arrest theory a reasonable doubt. State, prosecution. Barnett v. people present other defense (Okl.Cr.1993). proof 233 Central to Monks’ room murder and committed the predicate crime is the defendant’s intent. jury. framed him not believed (Okl.Cr. State, Munson rejection theory jury’s of his of defense cert, denied, 1988), 1019, 109 S.Ct. conviction, alone, subsequent standing (1989); 102 L.Ed.2d 809 prove Stouffer cannot as the basis to he suf serve P,2d State, 1361-1362; Banks v. Therefore, prejudice. fered manifest this consistently 426. We have held proposition of error is denied. intent can be inferred from cir defendant’s cumstantial evidence. Snow v. RELATING ISSUES TO PUNISHMENT (Okl.Cr.1994) and cases cited P.2d review circumstan therein. This Court will proposition In his fourth of error any tial rea evidence to determine whether Appellant requests this Court reconsider hypothesis than the de sonable exists other constitutionality cir predicate intent commit the fendant’s society.” “continuing threat cumstance Id.; Riley v. crime. aggravating circumstance He contends this is (Okl.Cr.1988). present un case the sufficiently vague tailored. The con derlying alleged which crime for stitutionality of this circum prosecu to have order avoid murdered upheld by been the United States stance has robbery. tion is Estelle, Supreme Barefoot 3383, 3396-3397, 880, 896-899, The first evidence showed U.S. (1983), approximately was in need one hundred 77 L.Ed.2d prove previously fifty He mentioned to Rinker that mitted to he had been con dollars. money escape penal and that he would “do decedent had victed of from a institution. He get money. Sidney what he had to” to the He left him claims all trial documents list as company party judgment the of decedent while S. Scott while the and sentence Stigler sleep. However, to to No Sidney the others returned reads Soren Scott.13 money although was found on decedent he Bill Appellant of Particulars does list as Sid dollars the last time McDonald had eleven ney Soren Scott. While the should State morning Appellant saw him. The next said provided identification, proof have more killed for dollars. he decedent eleven His names, similarity of the use of both actions were also consistent with desire to Particulars, Bill names on the and refer Appellant spent avoid arrest. a considerable Appellant just ences witnesses that had amount of time with decedent and could like escape prove been released is sufficient to ly be identified him. He drove decedent’s person judgment on listed and sen away truck a few it on miles and set fire. He Sidney Appellant, tence as Soren Scott was requested the others fabricate an alibi for Sidney on trial identified court documents as disposal him and directed the murder S. Scott. See Battenfield weapon. Appellant Edwin Monks testified (Okl.Cr.1991); Dodson v. gave pants they to his his sister because (Okl.Cr.1984); Cooper hit see bloody. Finally, were the evidence was suffi State, (Okl.Cr. prove Appellant to cient murdered decedent 1991). judgment In addition to the and sen aforethought. malice with From this evi presented tence the State Ronda Simon as a jury Appellant dence the could conclude had day rebuttal witness. testified the after She decedent, to with him motive rob left to Appellant that the murder directed his sister robbery, struggled commit the with and then destroy pants and mother he wore on decedent, killed moved and burned the truck February stage From this second evidence, destroy in an effort to directed the jury Appellant evidence the could conclude pants linking him to mur destruction of responsi previously attempted had to avoid disposal der and directed the of the murder bility destroyed evi for criminal acts and weapon. From this the could rule out dence and directed the destruction of other hypotheses Ap all other reasonable but link him evidence which could to the murder. pellant committed the murder to avoid arrest evidence, Together stage with the first suffi Carter, prosecution. Compare 879 P.2d at presented prove Appel cient evidence was to 1247; Fox v. 575-576 lant committed the murder to avoid arrest or 1060,110 prosecution. 1538, 108 (1990), L.Ed.2d 777 and Mun Appellant proposition sixth of error his son, (finding evi 758 P.2d at 335 sufficient speculates aggrava- insufficient evidence dence). support

tion exists to his death sentence cir- absent the existence Appellant next contends the second prosecution. cumstance to avoid arrest or stage evidence was likewise insufficient above, sufficient evidence does As discussed prose prove he murdered decedent avoid support aggravating circum- exist argues judgment and cution. He sen prosecution. stance to avoid arrest or escape during the tence for admitted second proving propensity was critical to support the circum To responsibility past criminal ac for his avoid society continuing stance of threat tions and the inference he murdered dece prove must the defendant’s behavior State to avoid arrest. claims dent prob society and a demonstrated a threat to prove failed to he was the same individ State exist, judgment ability this threat would continue ual on the and sentence ad listed Information, Stage Stage Aggravating as Circumstance form lists the First Second form, form, Sidney Guilty Stage which read S. Scott. Punishment the documents Second Malone, mitigating cir- vating against sentencing. 876 P.2d at circumstances even after State, 270, 717; will in the Manda- 277-278 cumstances be addressed Smith v. 819 P.2d — denied, -, (Okl.Cr.1991), There no merit to tory Sentence Review. is cert. U.S. 2312, (1992),reh’g proposition. this 112 119 L.Ed.2d 232 S.Ct. — denied, -, 11, 120 113 U.S. S.Ct. proposition Appellant In final of error his (1992); State, v. 809 P.2d L.Ed.2d 939 Sellers constitutionality of challenges the several (Okl.Cr.1991), denied, 676, 502 cert. U.S. 689 stage acknowl- second instructions. While (1991). 912, 310, 252 112 S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d edging this Court has held such instructions through introduction This can be established constitutional,16Appellant are asks this Court detailing partic the defendant’s of evidence that, argues while the issue. He to revisit ipation in unrelated crimes14 as well as the the in his case mirror the Okla- instructions with which a defendant sheer callousness Jury homa Instructions-Criminal Uniform particular commits a murder.15 (OUJI-CR) instructions, relating to the law that the penalty death cases has evolved such find sufficient evidence existed We adequately instructions do not OUJI-CR of support circumstance jurors. Appellant pres- present the law to society. continuing The fatal threat challenges adequacy of the ents four was vicious and did not result wound given. instructions Appellant immediate death. confessed sev eral times he killed decedent for eleven dol challenge Appellant first lars. also told Rinker he became sexual He incorporation stage anti- claims of the first killing ly when decedent. The State aroused stage sympathy instruction17 in the second presented Appellant had been con evidence 18 jury giving from precluded instructions escape penal and victed from a institution of Appellant sympathy mitigating that the destroyed present evidence in the case. could have warranted. This circumstances jury logically From this could conclude upheld practice this numerous has on Court prior he he had committed a crime for which State, 1067, Harjo P.2d occasions. See v. 882 being propensity incarcerated and his 1321; (1994); Mayes, 887 P.2d at 1079-1080 responsibility avoid for his crimes. Evidence Revilla, 1153; Boyd, at P.2d at 877 P.2d 839 presented previously he was incarcerat Stiles, Thomas, 1372; 994-995; 829 P.2d at for in Arizona and received a citation ed Fox, 1349-1350; P.2d at 574- 811 P.2d at 779 days weapon prior carrying a concealed two law clear. The 575. The on this issue is Finally, pre the murder. evidence was incorporating trial court did not err in previously he claimed to have killed sented stage instructions in the first second to witnesses while custo made threats trial. dy prior to trial. sup- the instruc Both circumstances are next contends circum- Weighing aggra- given mitigating tions on ported evidence. 378, 100; State, Snow, 298; Allen, at P.2d Workman v. 824 P.2d 14. See 876 P.2d at 871 P.2d at - denied, State, (Okl.Cr.1991), 100; Castro, 172; Clayton U.S. 383-384 cert. 844 P.2d at v. - -, 258, (1992); 18, (Okl.Cr.1992), denied, 189 113 S.Ct. 121 L.Ed.2d 840 P.2d 35 cert. 566; Sellers, -, 1655, Battenfield, P.2d at 809 P.2d at 816 U.S. S.Ct. 123 L.Ed.2d 275 113 690; Boltz, 1125; State, State, 1363, (Okl. (1993); v. 779 Boyd v. 806 Fox 839 P.2d - denied, -, Cr.1992), P.2d at 577. cert. U.S. 113 S.Ct. 3005, (1993); Battenfield, 125 L.Ed.2d Brief at 88 wherein he cites 16. See 567; State, 1117, P.2d at 806 P.2d Bo/tz State, (Okl.Cr.1991), Thomas v. 811 P.2d 1337 denied, 846, cert. 502 U.S. 1041, 895, 116 502 U.S. 112 S.Ct. (1991); 116 L.Ed.2d 109 Munson (1992). L.Ed.2d 798 335; 758 P.2d at Ross (Okl.Cr.1986), aff'd, 487 U.S. 123-124 No. 19 taken verbatim from 17. Instruction (1988). 108 S.Ct. 101 L.Ed.2d 80 No. OUJI-CR 907. (Okl. Supplemental ver- See 18. Instruction No. 10 is taken Revilla v. Allen, 1994); Snow, 298; batim from OUJI-CR No. Cr. aggravating circums against unguided stances dis- the matter to stances left preponderance tances.20 He claims creates jury.19 He claims this cretion height violates the evidence standard mitigating jury considered whether the doubt required penalty standard death ened Morgan v. Illi- in violation of circumstances consistently held that This has - cases. nois, -, -, 112 S.Ct. U.S. balancing aggravating specific standards (1992), 119 L.Ed.2d mitigating are not consti circumstances Oklahoma, 104, 117, 102 Eddings v. Malone, tutionally P.2d at required. 876 (1982). 1, 869, 878, 71 L.Ed.2d 12 Ap- S.Ct. State, 368, 715; P.2d 392 Romano v. 847 have argues the instructions should pellant — -, (Okl.Cr.1993), granted, U.S. cert. “may” word “must” instead of contained the (1993); 380,126 L.Ed.2d 330 Wood 114 S.Ct. jury his list considered in order ensure (Okl.Cr. 1124, 1149 846 P.2d ruff precise This mitigating circumstances. of — U.S.-, 1993), denied, 114 S.Ct. cert. and this has has been addressed issue (1993); 349, 313 Williamson 126 L.Ed.2d similarly instruc- consistently upheld worded (Okl.Cr.1991), 410 cert. 812 P.2d 1320-1321; P.2d at Mayes, 887 tions. See — -, denied, 112 118 U.S. S.Ct. Malone, Revilla, 1154; P.2d at 876 877 P.2d — denied, (1992), reh’g U.S. L.Ed.2d 308 102; 714; Allen, Pickens v. 871 P.2d at at (1992). -, 244 112 119 L.Ed.2d P.2d 339 850 862, 890, Stephens, See also Zant —(cid:127) -, 127 114 S.Ct. U.S. 258 77 L.Ed.2d 103 S.Ct. Thomas, (1994); P.2d at L.Ed.2d 232 (1983). given mirror The instructions merit to this contention. There is no 1350. jury informed the instructions and OUJI-CR finding aggravating circumstances that a of challenge Appellant con In third his by is not itself beyond a reasonable doubt to inform the the instructions failed tends penalty. Rath to assess the death sufficient mitigating jury not have to find that it did er, must aggravating circumstances Ap decision. unanimous circumstances any circum clearly outweigh mitigating that, must argues because pellant may penalty be before the death stances unanimously, aggravating circumstances in find held similar imposed. This Court has Harjo, would lead them to believe See the instructions structions constitutional. Revilla, 1153; 1082; at 877 P.2d mitigating circum P.2d at they must also find the Romano, Allen, 102; P.2d at P.2d at precise This by unanimous decision. stances 1149; 392; William Woodruff, 846 P.2d at rejected by this Court. argument has been son, cited therein. at 410 and cases 1081; Harjo, Mayes, See contention. no merit to this There is Stiles, 1320-1321; at 997. contention. is no merit to this There REVIEW MANDATORY SENTENCE in

Finally, Appellant claims the O.S.Supp.1987, improper given set forth an as structions Pursuant (1) 701.13(C), now determine § we must mitigating circum weighing the burden for history; family The defendant's Supplemental taken ver- 5. Instruction No. 6 is 19. Supplemental potential 438. rehabilita- from OUJI-CR No. batim 6. The defendant's No. 7 is derived from OUJI-CR Instruction No. 439 tion. and reads: existed, circumstances Whether these following offered as to the Evidence has been mitigating, are these circumstances whether mitigating circumstances: by you. decided must be crime; age at time of The of defendant 1. appreciate Capacity 2. of defendant 8 is taken ver- Supplemental No. 20. Instruction wrongfulness or to conform his of his conduct Supplemental 440. from OUJI-CR No. batim requirements law was im- of conduct to from OUJI- is taken verbatim No. 9 Instruction intoxication; paired a result of as CR No. history of defen- Education and work dant; previously been 4. Defendant has never violence; of a crime of convicted had imposed questions as to whether or not witness whether sentence of death was charges on treatment received favorable passion, prejudice or under the influence exchange testimony. treat- for his Favorable (2) factor, any arbitrary other whether at- then ment was denied. defendant jury’s finding supports evidence spite tempted that in to introduce evidence as enumerated in circumstances testimony charges either certain were O.S.Supp.1981, § As 701.12. noted above dropped subsequently filed were support both sufficient evidence existed against It the introduction the witness. alleged circumstances quoted this evidence to which extrinsic prosecution; arrest or State: avoid have situa- language We do not that relates. society. mitigation continuing threat Here, prohibited the trial court tion here. youth, presented of his evidence asking treat- from about favorable he was at the time of the intoxicated language ment on arrests. The identified murder, history, incomplete good work only questions if the apply from Beck would education, public of his death father when asked, favor- had there was a denial of been old, years loving relationship he was ten with being and able treatment offered rehabilitation, family, potential his for then to introduce evidence of favorable tried previously and that he had never been con- treatment. carefully victed of violent crime. After However, proposi- for Beck does stand weighing circumstances and evidence, tion that sometimes evidence would all we mitigating determine the may under the evidence code be admissible outweigh the circumstances miti- showing the purpose of be admissible for the gating evidence. The sentence of death is testify is or had motivation to witness biased factually appropriate. Fi- substantiated and concept in a rein- certain manner. This warranting nally, no reversal or error exists in forced Carolina Accordingly, con- modification. (Okl.Cr.1992) we held that the State where viction and sentence are AFFIRMED. prior could cross examine on arrests pending charges to bias of defense show P.J., CHAPEL, V.P.J., JOHNSON, witnesses. J., LUMPKIN, concur. ques- we establish that the denied Once LANE, J., concurs in result. may tioning permitted be we must then look to see if the trial court abused its discretion LANE, Justice, concurring in result. prohibiting appellant inquiring in from into I find that it was an the arrests. would my I write to address views as I then make a abuse of discretion. would majority’s Appellant’s Proposi- treatment of determination to whether the error was as II, tion on cross examination restrictions or fit in area of verdict determinative I Rinker. fail to see how the witness light error. When examined in the harmless time evidence of his arrest between the I of the entire case find that the error the murder and the trial would be admissible beyond a harmless reasonable doubt. impeachment stage for in the of trial second I majority concur results. and not in the first. The finds that the second evidence admissible .is testify. stage to show or motivation to I bias it is in the

find that admissible first

the same reason. majority upon relied statements refer- O.S.1981, §§

ring to 12 contained (Okl.Cr.1991) 824 P.2d 385 Beck apply I do not believe to the current

which Beck, the defendant had asked

case.

Case Details

Case Name: Scott v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Feb 14, 1995

Citation: 891 P.2d 1283

Docket Number: F-90-1195

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.