|
|
|
| Character Evidence |
|
Dunkle v. State,
2006 OK CR 29 (July 7, 2006): Character Evidence; Crime Scene Reconstruction: Laura Dunkle was convicted of Murder in the First Degree in Grady County and sentenced to LWOP in the shooting death of her fiancee. Reversed and remanded for new trial on two grounds: 1) improper introduction of character evidence, primarily that Dunkle practiced witchcraft and was a bad mother because DHS investigated her care of her children; and 2) improper introduction of a computer-generated crime scene re-enactment. The "witchcraft" evidence is particularly appalling because the State's only proffered reason for introducing it was to show that "this is the person she is" and that she was "unusual." The State did not tie the "witchcraft" to any aspect of the case other than to vilify the accused and the trial judge allowed the State to bring in just about anything toward that end, almost all of it irrelevant to the charge. Trial Judge: Richard G. Van Dyck, Grady County.
|
|
United States v. Yarbrough,
No. 06-5229 (10th Cir., June 3, 2008) (Published): Character Evidence: Yarbrough was a Tulsa police officer assigned to the organized gang unit. When the feds began investigating possible corruption in the unit, they concentrated on him, feeding him information on another officer which he passed on. For this, he was eventually convicted of Obstructing an Official Proceeding. The panel found no error in the wiretaps or in refusal of his requested entrapment instruction; however, the panel REVERSED on the basis that the trial court refused to allow him to introduce CHARACTER EVIDENCE(!) The panel re-energized character evidence in this opinion, seemingly from out of the blue.
|
|
Michelle Ann Barry v State ,
No. F-2007-336 (Okl.Cr., September 25, 2008) (unpublished): 1. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; 2. Character Evidence: Barry was tried by jury in Latimer County before the Hon. Bill Welch on a charge of Murder in the First Degree in the death of her infant daughter and sentenced to straight Life. The Court rejected Barry's sufficiency of the evidence claim, stating: "Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as we must, this Court finds that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Barry must have been the one to kill her daughter---and that this killing must have been intentional, because of the 'massive' force required---because the only other person in the house who was awake at the time Andrea was killed, i.e., her brother, Andre Heath, was simply not physically capable of inflicting the injuries that killed her." Andre Heath was only five-years-old. However, Barry was more successful on her IAC claim which argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of her drug use as res gestae (she used meth a couple of days prior to the death of Andrea), improper opinion evidence that Barry was a "bad mother," and for failing to develop evidence to rebut the State's contention that five-year-old Andre was incapable of hurting Andrea. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL on the basis of IAC. Significantly, the first trial ended in a hung jury and the Court stated: "Trial counsel allowed the State to present a cascade of evidence, with nary an objection, about what a nasty, disgusting, infested home baby Andrea was found in, even though there was never any suggestion that any of these conditions, or any neglect of Andrea, had anything to do with the violent injuries that caused her death. In fact, trial counsel did almost nothing to limit the State's character attacks on Barry as a drinking, drug-using, incompetent, neglectful mother." For example, the State introduced a photograph of cockroaches in baby Andrea's bassinet that was more prejudicial than probative. NOTE: Although Judge Lumpkin concurred in results, Judge Lewis dissented and would affirm the conviction.
|
|
|
|
