Vasquez v. St., 2025 OK CR 1
Affirmed murder conviction and death sentence over multiple claims of error. Trial court’s denial of motion for funds to present some fifteen out of state witnesses was not an abuse of discretion, where it found videoconferencing technology for mitigation testimony was proper under statutory factors, including COVID-19 safety concerns and restrictions and video would not negatively impact mitigating effect of testimony. Defense voir dired on effect of video testimony and prospective jurors were open to such testimony. Seven of seventeen second-stage witnesses testified remotely, with only minor technical problems. The trial court instructed the jury to consider video testimony the same way it would consider live testimony. Both the State and the defendant had witnesses either exposed to or diagnosed with COVID. Appellant faced no limitations on the presentation of mitigation evidence, only on the manner of its presentation. Appellant’s constitutional right to present mitigation evidence was preserved and no error occurred.
State v. Diaz, 2025 OK CR 2
Reversed and remand order sustaining demurrer to charge of felon in possession of a firearm. An air-powered BB gun is included as a firearm a convicted felon is prohibited from possessing by 21 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1283(A). Section 1283(A) prohibits a convicted felon from possessing “any pistol, imitation or homemade pistol, altered air or toy pistol, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle, or any other firearm.” Contrary holding in Thompson v. St, 1971 OK CR 328, was based on 1961 version that required the firearm to be “dangerous or deadly.” Newer statute abrogated Thompson and eliminated that element. Plain language shows legislative intent “to keep guns, real or imitation, out of the possession or control of felons. Sufficient evidence showed defendant’s possession of an “imitation pistol,” a BB gun that appeared to be a firearm.
St. v. Armstrong, 2025 OK CR 3
Answered reserved question of law. Trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test under 47 O.S.Supp.2017, § 756(A). Introduction of such evidence was not conditioned upon defendant testifying at trial and was subject to uniform limiting instruction, OUJI-CR(2d) No. 9-47 , that evidence of refusal to take breath test is a circumstance which, along with all other evidence, could be considered in determining guilt.
Thompson v. St., 2025 OK CR 4
Affirmed convictions for aggravated drug trafficking. Arresting officer who discovered drugs in traffic stop was not acting “outside of his jurisdiction.” Officer was Norman police officer and District Attorney Investigator for District 21, assigned to patrol I-40 eastbound in Canadian County at the request of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics. The stop for speeding was legal; the officer smelled raw marijuana from the car; a drug dog alerted on the car. Whether the officer’s assigned patrol violated state law does not show a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Stitt v. City of Tulsa, 2025 OK CR 5
Affirmed conviction for aggravated speeding. The City had jurisdiction to prosecute Appellant even though he is Cherokee Indian and the crime of speeding occurred on the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation in Tulsa. In Hooper v. City of Tulsa, 71 F.4th 1270 (10th Cir. 2023) the Court of Appeals rejected the arguments here that McGirt and section 14 of the Curtis Act and denied Oklahoma jurisdiction. This Court recently held in City of Tulsa v. O’Brien, 2024 OK CR 31, that Oklahoma has concurrent criminal jurisdiction in Indian country over non-member Indian defendants accused of committing non-major crimes. Tulsa’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case does not infringe upon tribal self-government under the Bracker balancing used in O’Brien.
Spybuck v. St., 2025 OK CR 7
Reversed conviction after bench trial for actual physical control of a vehicle under the influence of drugs. Appellant was not allowed counsel despite asking for counsel before trial and during closing argument. Appellant again requested counsel and quoted at length from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, (1932), one of numerous cases stressing the importance of access to legal counsel for one accused of a crime. At the close of the trial, the court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to one year, suspended, and a $300.00 fine. Reviewing the trial court’s ruling on his request for counsel for abuse of discretion, there is record or claim by the State that appellant waived his right to counsel, nor any record that the court inquired as to his ability to pay for counsel. The suspension of his sentence has no effect on the right to counsel, as a defendant may one day be jailed on that suspended sentence.
Reece v. Oklahoma, 2025 OK CR 10
Affirming murder conviction and death sentence of admitted serial killer over numerous constitutional claims.
Terry et al v. Drummond, 2025 OK CR 11
Answered question certified by panel of 10th Circuit judges whether 21 O.S. § 1311 require the State to prove the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence toward another to convict for threats constituting riot. Section 1311 does not literally require proof that defendant “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence toward another,” but the combined elements of mutual intent and that violent threats be “accompanied by immediate power of execution” substantially produce the same effect. See § 1311. The statute precludes punishment for mere hyperbole, idle threats, angry bluster, or lawful protest.
Broadstone v. St., 2025 OK CR 12
Affirmed no contest plea to felonious possession of a firearm. Petitioner claimed that her virtual presence by video at hearing on motion to withdraw the plea, without a recorded waiver of her physical presence, violated due process. The claim was forfeited by failing to object at the time of the evidentiary hearing. Court would not review this forfeited claim for plain error, as plain error review is not available for unpreserved allegations of error on petition for certiorari from a no contest plea. Lewis v. St., 2009 OK CR 30, Fields v. St., 1996 OK CR 35, and Medlock v. St., 1994 OK CR 65, ¶¶ 24, 33-35, allowing such review, are to that extent overruled.
Lopez v. St., 2025 OK CR 15
Reversed first degree murder conviction Trial court’s termination of defendant’s testimony about victim’s criminal record in violation its pre-trial order infringed the Sixth Amendment right to testify. The right to testify is fundamental, and while not it does not extend to incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible evidence, limitations cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate. Defendant’s violation of an evidentiary ruling was not defiant or disruptive enough to justify forfeiture of the right to testify. Telling the jury to disregard the testimony, barring further references to the victim’s criminal history, and warning about the consequences of further violations would have been appropriate. Given the importance of defendant’ testimony to his claim of self-defense and the potential lesser offense of manslaugher, the termination of his testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and requires reversal for a new trial.
Bu v. State, 2025 OK CR 17
Bertrand v. State, 2025 OK CR 19
Mitchell v. State, 2025 OK CR 20
Watson v. State, 2025 OK CR 21
Rodriguez v. State, 2025 OK CR 22
Turner v. State, 2025 OK CR 23
Haddock v. State, 2025 OK CR 24
Napoleon v. State, 2025 OK CR 25