White v. State

sorrow, feelings strong has re- MANDATORY SENTENCE REVIEW and that was involved in morse sadness O.S.1991, 143 Pursuant to 21 taking of the victim’s life. This evidence (1) 701.13(C), § we must determine (14) summarized into fourteen was factors imposed the sentence of death was under jury submitted to the for their consider- and passion, prejudice any influence of or other evidence, any mitigating as well as ation , (2) factor, arbitrary and whether the evi jury’might circumstances the find ex- other supports jury’s ag finding dence isting mitigating. or in 21 gravating circumstances as enumerated Upon O.S.1991, review of the record and Turning § our the second 701.12. mandate, weighing aggravating circum- careful jury of this found the portion evidence, mitigating stances and the we find aggravating of four circum existence 1) factually the sentence of death to be substan- previously the defendant was stances: I, and appropriate tiated to Count felony involving of a the use or convicted 2) degree murder. Under the record before person; the mur threat of violence to Court, say influ- heinous, cannot was atrocious, we especially was or cru der 3) by passion, prejudice, or other el; enced the murder was committed for the arbitrary contrary O.S.1991, factor purpose avoiding preventing a lawful 701.13(C), 4) finding § aggravating that the prosecution; and murder was arrest outweighed mitigating evi- person serving while a sen circumstances committed Accordingly, finding war- imprisonment dence. no error of a tence conviction 701.12(1)(4)(5)(6). ranting modification, O.S.1991, the JUDG- felony. As reversal or Degree and MENT SENTENCES for First previously, aggrava- each of discussed these Degree Burglary and are AF- supported by Murder First was sufficient tors evidence. FIRMED and the APPLICATION FOR evidence, Turning mitigating EVIDENTIARY ON HEARING SIXTH (4) witnesses, Appellant presented four his AMENDMENT IS DENIED. CLAIMS mother, father, and These sister brother. Appellant has a fami- witnesses testified that CHAPEL, P.J., STRUBHAR, and V.P.J. him; ly fully that loves and cares for that he Concur Result. cooperated with his'in- the authorities after crime; volvement in the that he a mental has LANE, J., JOHNSON, J., concur. and this mental disorder caused him disorder previously to be committed a mental hos-

pital; that he has abused crack cocaine mental, psychological development has permanently damaged thereby; been that under the influence of cocaine at was crack time of the homicide was in a state CR 1998 OK cocaine; psychotic delusion induced crack Boyd WHITE, Appellant, Kevin that he was is now to re- then and unable surrounding all member the circumstances degree the victim’s death due to his of intoxi- Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of time; twenty-three cation at months arrest, drug after his is sober and No. F-96-1326. incarcerated, free; that while has Appeals of Criminal of Oklahoma. anyone prison not been a threat system; is a brick mason Dec. readily and can utilize in a trade that trade prison closed benefit environment which will society;

and contribute to brother, Phillip, deliberately electrocuted suffered sever emotional has time;

disturbance ever since that building pipe entered sleeve, went to Iwanski’s bunk beat delivering several blows. After Iwanski Robertson, Bowen, Okla- P. James Joe put pipe in beating, Appellant his sleeve System, Capital Trial Indigent Defense homa he reached and walked toward exit. As Division, Tulsa, Appellant. for exit, guard he averted his face from the Ward, Attor- M. Assistant District Clint placed pipe in a bathroom station and Vinita, ney, for the State. that was under construction. One of day Indigent inmates testified Iwanski told him on the Pybas, De- Jamie D. Oklahoma he System, Capital Nor- homicide that was afraid that he Appeals, Direct fense man, debt, Appellant. repay the would be “taken did not he Appel- All three out.” inmates stated Edmondson, Attorney Drew General W.A. stumbling, staggering, weaving lant was not Oklahoma, Whittaker, Robert Assistant swaying Appellant and that did not have General, Attorney City, Appel- Oklahoma speech. Deputy Eddie Grif- slurred Sherriff lee. fin, Agent Stephens, and the O.S.B.I. Rick Burke, driver, Randy bus NEOCC Officer OPINION Appellant spoke clearly did testified and STRUBHAR, Judge. Vice-Presiding appear they intoxicated him when saw around the time of the homicide. Boyd White, Appel- 1 Kevin hereinafter lant, by jury of Mur- was tried and convicted ¶ Appellant took the stand and testified (21 O.S.1991, degree § first der homicide, days preceding that in the .7(A)), Craig County, in the District of, day ingesting on the well as he had been CF-95-14, D. No. the Honorable James Case drinking Appellant valium and said vodka. Goodpaster, Judge, presiding. District The homicide, day of the on the he took six finding four recommended death after tablets after valium lunch and consumed aggravating and the trial circumstances1 Appellant being more vodka. remembered accordingly. Appellant court sentenced dining waiting hall and at the for Iwanski Sentence, Judgment ap- From this money get so he after dinner could peals.2 being was owed. He in Build- remembered 14, walking ing down to Iwanski’s the aisle FACTS bunk, swinging pipe landing the ini- 1995, February 4, beat On not re- tial blow. claimed he did at the to death fellow inmate Donald Iwanski dinner, eating member the bus ride to Build- Northeast Oklahoma Correctional Center 14, having possession, ing pipe in his twenty dollar NEOCC] over a [hereinafter delivering the blows the first one or after The trial was debt. contested issue disposing pipe. Appellant testified to death beat Iwanski memory past that he had suffered loss in a aforethought with malice or while state abusing drugs when he was and alcohol and intoxication. past that when he crimes he was committed severely they Ap- inmates intoxicated. claimed that 3 Three testified saw Iwanski, get intend to kill but pellant on “chow” bus after dinner he did not Building go get paid. lived. there to and ride 14 where Iwanski intended to 1) previously Appellant's defendant of a 1. The was convicted 2. Petition in Error was filed in felony involving 18, April use or threat of violence was Court on 1997. brief 2) person; especially 18, The hei- 1997, murder was State's brief filed November and the atrocious, nous, cruel; 3) murder was reply was filed was filed March 1998. A brief by person serving a sentence committed while April 1998. The was submitted to the on case felony; imprisonment on of 4) conviction of a argument March Oral was Court on probability The existence of a that the defen- July held dant would commit criminal acts of violence society. continuing constitute a threat to O.S.1991, (7). 701.12(1), (4), error, Ap- adequate proposition Murphy’s pro- receive notice of Dr. 5 In his first court committed re- pellant posed claims the trial it because did not receive a by refusing Further, error to allow the de- Murphy’s findings.4 versible of Dr. health fense to its mental re-urged the State that Dr. support stage of trial to his volun-

the first prohibited giving opinion Appel- tary intoxication defense. Because we must kill lant’s intent based on Hooks. The agree the trial court ruling trial court reserved its until the de- prohibiting the men- abused its discretion fense announced its intention to call Dr. Mur- testimony, expert’s health this case must tal phy, but noted would hold an in camera for a be reversed and remanded new hearing to determine the extent to which this Court will not reach the merits of would be allowed to if the by Appellant. the other claims raised during stage. defense elected to call him rested, After the State defense counsel trial, re- Shortly 6 before the defense re request Murphy newed the to call Dr. Murphy, Dr. a Phillip tained licensed clinical stage proof. of trial and made an offer of psychologist, to examine and offer The trial Murphy court ruled Dr. support Appellant’s voluntary of testify stage days prior be allowed to the first of trial intoxication Ten to trial defense. provided because the had a of intent to call State not been the defense filed notice its Murphy summary adequate Murphy’s notice of Dr. proposed Dr. with a brief of his Thereafter, proposed testimony.3 Murphy’s opinion and because Dr. State by prohibited filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Mur was Hooks. Because defense objected phy’s from the first of trial counsel of Dr. exclusion Mur- 41, phy’s testimony proof, based on Hooks v. and made offer of ¶ 16, denied, unique cert. 511 are satisfied U.S. we under the circum- (1994). 114 128 L.Ed.2d 490 of S.Ct. stances this case the issue has been trial, argued properly preserved At the State it did not for review.5 summary provided: report 3.The The State did not receive a from Dr. Murphy Murphy prepare because Dr. did not Murphy testify Dr. will administered Murphy by appointed one. Dr. was retained depth psychological an in Defendant, evaluation of the private go counsel after to White, counsel refused to consisting Kevin of inter- trial, (O.R. contempt Defendant, was held in and withdrew. with the views collateral sources withdrawal, 171) private information; Prior to his counsel had and other that he conducted a applied for and obtained funds from the Okla- during number of tests with the Defendant Indigent System employ evaluation, homa Defense to a men- consisting of: The Bender-Gestalt (O.R. Appellant. Test; Test; Scale; tal health to evaluate Memory Hand Wexler 102, 108-116) Appointed Test; defense counsel was Memory Designs; Rorshach Millon previous III; unable to obtain information from the Inventory Clinical Multi Axial Clinical psychologists by Appellant's B; private hired Questionnaire; attor- Analysis Finger A & Trails ney psychologists paid Test; because the had not been Test; Agnosia Fingertip Writing Number (O.R. 194-197; Tr.23-25) Test; Test; Appointed in full. de- Strength Grip Category Bilateral of Test; fense counsel obtained limited additional funds Finger Tapping Neuropsycho- and Adult (Tr. 23-25) Murphy. Murphy to hire Dr. Dr. logical Questionnaire. understanding hired with the that funds were Murphy explain Dr. will the fundamentals of available for an evaluation but not for a detailed they the above tests as relate to the evaluation report concerning findings. According Defendant; to purpose and substance counsel, Murphy Dr. Defendant; defense was available for of the above tests as related to the by prosecution prior interview to trial and neuropsychological target; indicators the tests (Tr. by such claim was not contested 23-25) the State. analysis upon and and based conclusions results those tests as related to the Defen- dant. battery prudent Dr. will that from this 5. We believe would have been tests, developed neuropsychological request a to defense counsel to have renewed his Defendant, profile upon a de- based indicators call Dr. and have made more relating put proof and acute chronic alcohol and sub- tailed offer of after the defense on its abuse, potential neurological stance witnesses to establish intoxication so neuropsychological injuries negatively that the trial court could have better understood which Murphy’s testimony sup- effect the Defendant's form en- how would have gage knowledgeable specificity ported Appellant's acts with defense of intoxi- record, (O.R.230-31) and control. cation. However based on this counsel’s (1) privi- redaction of resolve is would be no need for the The issue to three-fold: leged because at- Did violate trial court’s communication defense counsel torney privileged by producing would not include commu- discovery report order summary. interpretation nication This Murphy’s opinion report when no exist- looking (2) further ed; violation, bolstered section discovery If there was 2002(B)(1)(a) severe, requires which defendants to imposed too i.e. was was the sanction relevant, provide the with the written State Appellant prejudiced the exclusion of testimony; recorded statements the wit- and Was Dr. Mur- to call. nesses defense intends Section phy’s opinion prohibited Hooks. 2002(B)(1)(c) presupposes the mental health determine first 8 This Court must report witness will a statement or since issue code, 22 discovery criminal any” “if language it does not contain the 2002, requires §§ all O.S.Supp.1996, 2002(B)(1)(a). section experts reports to issue mental health comply pro- opinions their the notice holding realize this could We discovery code.6 visions of the indigent hardship create a defendants. case, indigent O.S.Supp.1996, Oftentimes as in this defen Title 2002(B)(1)(c) provides: dants have for an evaluation funds consequently produce there is no state, request Upon the defense budgetary because one was not made. This required following: shall to disclose the be issue is a matter left to the Oklahoma Indi any c. the names and wit- addresses gent System Defense which must allocate call, defendant will other than ness the Legislature monies it pru receives from the himself, testimony relating for to dently indigent to ensure that defendants disease, defect, mental other mental or may comply discovery with the criminal bearing upon condition his mental state Requiring provide code.7 defendants to a allegedly at the time the offense was report leg mental health fulfills witness’ committed, together the witness’ with purpose discovery islative of the criminal fact, if statement of that is statement provide statute notice and which is to elimi by preclude to redacted the court disclo- “trial Accordingly, nate ambush” tactics. privileged sure of communications. 2002(B)(1)(c) requires we find that section if 10 This Court must determine mental health witnesses to issue statements “together language the witness’ reports Appellant, production and that fact” statement section although deliberately, did violate 2002(B)(1)(e) requires report a to be made discovery providing court’s order produced any time defendant intends report State with a even to call witness or a mental health whether it though no report existed. only requires defense counsel to file a sum mary stating opin health the mental witness’ 12 The issue now becomes language plain ion. The whether the exclusion of Dr. section testi 2002(B)(1)(c) require mony was appears to defendants too severe a sanction for this discovery provide right to statement from the violation. accused setting opin prosecution’s actual confront witness forth the witness’ to witnesses and satisfy ion. If could defense counsel section his own witnesses establish a 2002(B)(1)(c)by producing summary defense is element of a fundamental due Texas, Washington testimony, process mental health witness’ there of law. v. 388 $3,000.00 adequately preserved is case that actions this issue for re- 7. There no excuse in this essentially view. pay- OIDS wasted monies was experts ments to health who conducted mental produce 6. The State filed a motion to based on private an evaluation of counsel (O.R.81) O.S.Supp.1996, § The trial provide their and who refused to information to produce court the State’s motion to "in sustained appointed they had counsel because not been complies ruling.” so statute & far as it Allen w/ paid in full. (O.R.83) 14, 19, 1920, 1923, tively discovery 18 L.Ed.2d without adherence to rules of U.S. 87 S.Ct. (1967). Although discovery procedure govern orderly the criminal pre- provides arguments provide for exclusion of evidence as a sentation of code facts and non-compliance, party opportunity this Court has sanction for each with a fair to assem- capital cases that the exclu ble and found several submit evidence to contradict or ex- However, plain opponent’s of a defense witness was “too severe a sion case. exclud- State, ing Murphy’s testimony sanction.” Allen v. 1997 OK CR See the first ¶44, 11, ability 944 P.2d 937. See also Wisdom of trial pres- denied 22, 44, voluntary v. 918 P.2d ent the foundation of his intoxi- 396; Morgan v. prejudicial impact District Court Woodward cation defense and the is 29, ¶8, established, County, plain. Appellant believed, OK CR finding In the Allen court noted the ingested so he was intoxicated after he six vali- Compulsory Amendment Process um Sixth tablets and drank vodka the afternoon by excluding preceding could be violated a mate- Clause the homicide. He further testified i*ial defense witness as a sanction for a dis that he never intended to kill Iwanski and Allen, covery violation. CR significant por- OK that he could not remember ¶ 11, “Excluding 944 P.2d at 937. a material evening tions of the of the homicide. Dr. appropriate only explained defense witness is where would have the second discovery component violation “willfuland motivat intoxication de- fense, advantage ed desire obtain a tactical i.e. how intoxication affect- that would minimize the prevented effectiveness of ed mental state and him from cross-examination and the forming aforethought. adduce malice Such evidence ” (quoting Taylor rebuttal evidence.’ Id. is critical to establish defense of volun- Illinois, 400, 415, 108 646, 656, tary 484 U.S. S.Ct. intoxication. (1988)). discovery 98 L.Ed.2d 798 Where the Although Murphy’s opin willful,

violation is not blatant or calculated ion would have embraced an ultimate issue to gamesmanship, alternative sanctions are ade fact, be decided the trier of it Allen, quate appropriate. See 1997 OK prohibited by Hooks. The Hooks court held ¶44, 11, CR 944 at 937. P.2d that a mental health could not render ¶ n 13 the instant the record opinion an on a kill defendant’s intent shows that the trial court did not consider opinion cognizable unless the related to a alleged discovery violation willful. Nor Hooks, insanity. such as 1993 OK Appellant’s produce report can failure to ¶41, 16, Voluntary CR 862 P.2d at 1279. support finding under these circumstances long recognized intoxication has been aas gain that such failure was done to a tactical Degree defense to the crime of First Malice advantage to minimize the effectiveness of State, E.g., Murder. Cheadle v. 11 Okl.Cr. Murphy the State’s cross-examination of Dr. (1915). 566, 149 P. 919 should produce or to hinder the State’s suggest have been free to the inferences the clearly rebuttal evidence. The record shows jury application should draw from the of his prosecutor anticipated Appellant’s volun specialized knowledge to the facts tary ques intoxication defense because long merely case as as he refrained from tioned all witnesses about sobri telling what result to reach. See Further, ety. the State’s witness rebuttal ¶ State, 28, 18, Cannon v. 1998 OK CR 961 although Appellant testified that smelled of 838, 846; P.2d Romano v. 1995 OK CR alcohol, appeared sober. State was 74, 92, denied, ¶21, 109, 909 P.2d cert. 519 prepared well to contest evidence that 855, 151, 117 L.Ed.2d 96 U.S. S.Ct. 136 Appellant was intoxicated at the time of the (1996). opinion Such evidence is admissible homicide extent that his mental abilities because assists trier fact to under were so overcome that not form the he could stand the evidence and determine a fact in requisite intent to kill. probative issue and its value is not substan acutely tially outweighed by danger 14 This Court is aware the unfair Cannon, adversary process prejudice. could not function effec- See 312 time, Romano, judges At the same 846; deserve.

¶20, CR ers P.2d at 1995 OK Hooks, by providing a consis 109-110, discipline ourselves 74, 22, 1993 we P.2d at reviewing which the cases 41, 13, tent method for at 1279. Because OK CR appeal”. Id. at 902. The us on come before Murphy’s opinion was admissible can here is not whether the defendant issue at trial and there was material to the issues defense, whether he is enti present his but violation, discovery we find the trial no willful jury instruction on that defense. tled to a of Dr. court’s exclusion “[Bjefore to an in a defendant is entitled revers stage in the of trial constitutes first ¶¶ ..., 11-12, he must estab Allen, struction on the defense CR ible eiTor. OK ... prima case of the elements lish a Accordingly this case is 944 P.2d at facie Lemons, Michigan v. that defense.” to the District Court reversed and remanded (1997). Pri 562 N.W.2d Mich. trial. for a new

as: evidence is defined ma facie

CHAPEL, in result. P.J.: Concurs face. good and sufficient on its Evidence as, judgment in the Such LUMPKIN, Specially Concur. J.: fact, law, given is sufficient establish constituting group of facts or chain or J., JOHNSON, LANE, J.: Concur. defense, if party’s or and which claim CHAPEL, P.J., IN contradicted, CONCURRING will remain not rebutted RESULT: judgment ... sufficient to sustain supports. which it favor of the issue majority decision to 1 I concur in the Jackson, for a new trial. reverse and remand this case also 964 P.2d at Id. not. See however, cannot, analysis of agree I with the 901-2. 2002(B)(1)(c). I O.S.Supp.1996, Title apply procedure I I 3 If were to requires a defendant believe the statute to the limited facts set suggested Jackson they reports disclose or statements opinion, in the I would find the out should, can, I we exist. do believe correctly request for the judge denied the every mental require a written voluntary intoxication instruction and the tes- health witness. timony is, trial. The reason for that based on LUMPKIN, JUDGE: SPECIALLY I opinion, related in the would find the facts CONCUR compe- Appellant present failed to sufficient support and to tent evidence to his defense ¶ in in this 1 I concur the Court’s decision jury instruction on that defense. warrant a more on the facts not stated but do so are stat- opinion than the facts which opinion gives impression that 4 The the addition, analy- In I believe the Court’s ed. supporting the defense of the of the Oklahoma Criminal sis of the revisions voluntary Appellant’s state- intoxication was Discovery the Code are accurate both and tak- ment that he had consumed alcohol interpretation language of the statute However, that is not the fact en valium. relating Legislative intent to well presents. In to the record addition situation Discovery Code. statement, attempted defense inmate, testimony why of a fellow example of to offer the This case is a vivid Coffman, the evi- objective Michael and did promulgate cri needs to inmate, Darren evaluating dence of another Wasserman. judges trial to utilize in teria for statements, Appellant’s self-serving when necessity giving of an instruction on testimony two in- coupled of these theory of defense. See Jackson defendant’s (Okl.Cr.1998) mates, competent evidence for (Lump does establish 964 P.2d 875 relating result). to kin, trier of fact to make a decision concurring in As I stated J. believability Appellant’s evi- Jackson, clear, objective between “by establishing cri presented conflicting evidence appeal, dence and the analysis of issues on we teria our guidance practition- the State. provide helpful trial voluntary defense of not come forward earlier because he was 5 To establish his intoxication, Appellant called inmate Darrin shortly transferred from NEOCC after the Wasserman, Appellant took va- who testified homicide and did not know who to contact day of the lium and drank vodka on the until he a writ saw issued to another inmate cross-examination, However, on homicide. facility testify Appellant’s at his current actually conceded he did not see Wasserman agreed prosecutor trial. The with the offer ingest the valium or drink the proof and also added that Coffman had did estimate vodka. Wasserman good Appel- admitted that was a friend of days preced- five had been drunk for four or objected lant. The to the call- State staggering ing the homicide because he was Coffman, stating reliability ing “the indicia of trying stay away and said he was testimony] very suspect”. [of his get Appellant because he did not want to into ruling court reserved its until the defense addition, In said he saw trouble. Wasserman presented most" of its witnesses. The trial just dining prior at the hall court then ruled that Coffman would not be homicide, but he did not have contact with allowed to in the first of trial him at that time. because of the lateness of the notice and Friday began 6 On the before trial because it did not believe Coffman was Monday, defense received a letter counsel testimony credible witness whose would af- saying from inmate Michael Coffman he had proceedings. fect concerning Appellant’s information ease. Appellant’s defense counsel at trial advised readily apparent 7 It is from the offer prior the court selection that he had proof, acknowledgement and the State’s given name and address to the Coffman’s it, newly wit- Coffman was discovered State and had filed for a writ to have Coff- surprise ness who was a to the defense as transported Craig County. man back to De- well as the State. Three inmates and two fense counsel further advised the court he sheriff, officers, deputy corrections O.S.B.I. had not been able to interview Coffman to agent and the bus driver who took witness, be a know whether would viable back to the barracks testified that but informed the court at that time if it intoxicated, being did not have indicia of developed that Coffman had relevant testi- on their observations his actions based mony, he call as a witness. At him speech. Appellant’s self-serving testimo- that time the State moved in limine to ex- itself, ny, weighed against when and of testimony clude Coffman's due to the failure would not State’s witnesses date, at an but at to list witness earlier competent have been evidence to warrant an acknowledged time it was not de- the same intoxication. Howev- instruction fense counsel’s fault. The court issued the er, Appellant’s testimony, togeth- when taken Craig writ and had Coffman transferred to er with the of Wasserman and the County parties opportunity allow Coffman, proffered testimony of created a relevancy interview him to determine the question pre- been of fact which should have testimony. Upon return his Coffman’s jury Craig County, the and the defense sented to the to determine the believa- both State opportunity the interview him. At the bility point, had At that “the of the witnesses. case, the rested its defense coun- time State of whether the evidence has been re- issues call sel announced his intent to Coffman as questions or contradicted are of fact butted voluntary in- support Appellant’s witness to proper the to decide under instruc- proof toxication defense. The offer of sub- by tions the Court”. 964 P.2d at 902. that mitted defense counsel stated Coff- very type 8 This of fact situation is the testify man would that he had dinner with provide objective reason this Court should day Appellant the homicide that the judge evaluating to aid the trial in criteria Appellant very intoxicated. Coffman presented to determine if an the evidence testify also had been would theory of should instruction on the drinking days prior three to the homicide. given. had The court was also advised that Coffman be analysis with our 11 This is consistent I further discussion is also believe State, testimony opinion Davenport in v. 806 P.2d 655 concerning of Dr. Mur needed the (Okl.Cr.1991), perime- the wherein we set out experts are limited phy. After-the-fact testimony relating child expert testimony proper. which is Dr. ters for scope of the syndrome. As we stated accommodation Murphy interviewed and evaluated case, expert proper for the to relate incident is period of time after the substantial Therefore, and character- 4,1995. any opinion the trier of fact the indicia February syndrome and allow the trier provide to a trier of fact istics might be able to to then determine whether or not the opinion as to fact properly could not include an presented supports application an was intoxicated on whether or concept limi in the case. Id. at 659-60. night place. took the this murder expert type of witness testi tations on this competent In once mony provided discussion in the basis our intoxi- evidence of the defense (Okl. State, 1273, 1278-79 Hooks presented, testimo- cation was Cr.1993). P.2d Citing to Moore v. regarding ny have been relevant stated, (Okl.Cr.1990), “[i]n conducted on results of tests words, ‘[ajlthough 2704 abol Section other Murphy. test results would These rule, ished the “ultimate issue” Sections at the have identified condition operate to admis and 2403 should bar testing Appel- time as it related to merely opinions which would tell sion ‘“of night actions on the of the murder. lant’s (cites jury what result to reach make the This would allow the trier of fact to omitted). analysis sup in Hooks is Our not, on the decision as to whether or based 7-6.6, American Bar ported Standard evidence, Appellant could have formed the Mental Health Association Criminal Justice However, Murphy, kill. intent to provision provides: Standards. That expert, not and could not as to should [ejxpert testimony develop- how opinion regarding whether had ment, functioning adaptation, and the intent or had the to form may processes have in- defendant’s mental February Experts, intent to kill on at the fluenced the defendant’s conduct especially dealing those with the art form of charged time of the offense should be ad- psychiatry psychology, are humans with testimony, Opinion missible. specialized knowledge, possess but do not lay, expert or as to whether or not the Therefore, deity. opin- attributes of a their criminally responsible at defendant was regarding might place ion what have taken at charged the time of the offense should speculation a crime based on the time of admissible, added). (emphasis be guesses within their area of éstimates knowledge. It specialized is for that reason commentary discussing 10 In the opinion relate that the content of their should standard, following analysis forth: is set interpretation to an of the tests adminis- [tjhe proper limits to so-called ultimate tered on the defendant which indicate the fully testimony cannot be determined issue condition of the defendant the time of specific in the abstract. In the context of testing explanation effect (such testimony appre- as use of the word findings. those This can then be ciate), courts must choose between the only if the of fact find those considered triers important principles two reflected Stan- pursuant factors did exist to the evidence 7-3.9(a): (1) dard trial at the time of presented the course of be admitted when it is based on should There cannot be a carte blanche the offense. specialized knowledge will witness’s expert testimony ap- authorization of without fact; expert the trier assist being applied to its propriate restrictions permitted not be to ex- witnesses should content. “any question requiring press opinions on case, appear rele- 13 In this it would a conclusion of law or a moral or social appropriate to have judgment properly vant and value reserved testify regarding the tests jury.” been allowed to court or to the tests, administered, of those the results controlled sub- effect alcohol and/or Appellant if the could have had on

stances in- those substances had been found language in Hooks gested by Appellant. Our very clear. As we stated: makes this [Bjecause jury might in need assistance assessing understanding and mental disor in which would render an accused ders sane, testimony routinely expert admit insanity is raised.

ted when the defense When, a defendant at this on the

tempts to elicit possessed issue of whether he she crime in requisite intent to commit the question, be exclud such should “[njo Gabus, Here, supra, spe

ed. knowledge needed to understand cial these facts and draw conclusions Id., Anyone P.2d at 256. who them.” temper tantrum or a has ever witnessed urge fight, felt an to strike out another attempted explain away a person or bad appreciated have the nature of deed could before, during after the Hooks’ actions “[Wjhere experiences the normal murder: jurors qualifications laymen permit proper conclusions Jfromthe them to draw circumstances, expert facts and conclusions opinions Id. are inadmissible.” 862 P.2d at 1279. reasons, I 14 For the above concur matter. the decision of the Court SALAZAR, Appellant, Maximo Lee Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of No. F-96-1496. Appeals Court of of Oklahoma. Criminal Dec. Rehearing Denied Feb.

Case Details

Case Name: White v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Dec 29, 1998

Citation: 973 P.2d 306

Docket Number: F-96-1326

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.