Zou v. State, 2026 OK CR 1
Affirmed conviction of unlawful cultivation, trafficking in marijuana, possession of controlled drug without tax stamp, and maintaining a place for keeping or selling controlled dangerous substances. Cultivation of marijuana is illegal outside of the parameters set forth by the OMMA. See 63 O.S.2021, § 2-509(B). The grower applicant must obtain a license and meet ownership requirements, and possess a current OBN registration. Complaints of criminal acts against a grower may be investigated and prosecuted. The defendant’s OBN registration was expired when the OBN investigation of his operation began in June 2022. His resident seventy-five percent owner knew nothing about it, indicating a fraudulent license application for the grow. The operation lacked virtually every legal requirement involving reporting, tagging of plants, and security of plants or finished product. The evidence showed that defendant had no valid license to culivate at the subject location. Criminal prosecution is available for an unlicensed grower violating Oklahoma drug laws. Evidence of defendant’s non-compliance refutes his claim that the trial court applied an unfair “strict adherence” standard to his non-compliance. The State is not limited to administrative remedies for non-compliance. OMMA regulations clearly contemplate prosecution for criminal activity. Appellant’s subjective belief that his grow operation was legal is not a defense.
Jacobs v. State, 2026 OK CR 2
Affirmed conviction for first degree manslaughter. Trial court’s instruction on prior inconsistent statements of a reluctant prosecution witness was plain error, because the witness testified at trial that she simply had no recollection of the events or the statements she had previously made. These statements were not inconsistent with her prior statements and were not extrinsic impeachment. The witness admitted making the recorded statements played for the jury and said that she told the truth, but could not recall making the statements. The video of her statements was substantive evidence of the facts, not impeachment. The trial court’s instruction on impeachment by prior inconsistent statements was in error, but was harmless.
St. v. Leuvano, 2026 OK CR 3
Reversed order suppressing evidence. Defendant was arrested for stabbing by a police-certified Spanish interpreter who translated Miranda warnings from a card in which the warning was written in English. The officer testified defendant appeared to understand and admitted to stabbing the victim, but also claimed self-defense. Defense counsel argued the defendant was high when given the Miranda warnings, and that the officer’s use of the word “treatment” rather than “statement” in the Miranda warning precluding a knowing waiver of Miranda rights. The trial court suppressed the evidence largely on this basis. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the trial court erred. A Miranda translation need not be perfect if the defendant understands the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an attorney. The initial warnings touched these essential bases. Substitution of the word “treatment” for “statement” in no way undermined the core Miranda warnings, and defendant’s waivers were clearly voluntary as the record does not support his claim of substantial impairment due to intoxication.
State v. Crawford, 2026 OK CR 4
Dismissed State’s attempted appeal of trial court ruling suppressing sexual propensity evidence. The Court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal under both Sections 1053(5) and 1053(6) of Title 22. The trial judge’s in limine ruling on the admissibility of evidence is not a pre-trial order “suppressing or excluding evidence” within the meaing of these statutes. Suppressing or excluding evidence in criminal cases typically means exclusion of evidence due to a constitutional violation or exclusionary rule. The State’s right to appeal is created only by statute. Such interlocutory appeals have the potential to disrupt pending trials. Broad interlocutory appellate jurisdiction would chill trial courts use of pre-trial evidentiary rulings in the management of their dockets. The State may appeal only those orders where the trial court found a constitutional violation or related exclusionary rule and suppressed the State’s evidence.
Battee v. State, 2026 OK CR 5 Affirmed conviction of conjoint robbery. Facts brought to light after trial that the judge was seeking employment as general counsel with OSBI at the time of trial did not require recusal or result in reversible error. The test of judicial bias is not whether a judge harbors actual subjective bias, but whether the average judge in this position is likely to be neutral or, on the other hand, whether their interest creates unconstitut ional potential for bias. Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1, 8 (2016). Seeking and gaining a job as OSBI general counsel during a criminal trial is too tenuous to establish that the average judge in this position would be anything other than neutral. Future employment is not a direct pecuniary interest of the kind condemned in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (mayor who received a portion of fines paid to city could not sit as judge in the case) or similar cases. The judge was not seeking employment with the prosecuting authority but rather as general counsel to an investigative agency.
Radford v. State, 2026 OK CR 6
Affirmed the denial of pre-trial Stand Your Ground immunity for charge of assault and battery with a deadly weapon. Such pre-trial rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, asking only whether the court made a clearly erroneous conclusion or failed to consider relevant facts and law. The trial court must weigh disputed facts about the use of force to decide whether to grant immunity. Arguments at the hearing focused on whether defendant had the right to be on the property and whether the victim’s reaching for a firearm was an “attack” under the statute. The trial court found that defendant’s fear of the victim taking up and using a gun is not the same as being attacked. Because the court found defendant was not attacked, SYG immunity was properly denied. In SYG appeals, counsel must present argument “supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record” or forfeit the issue on appeal. Rule 3.5, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2026). Defendant’s brief fails to cite authority in his challenge to the trial court’s denial of immunity. This can result in forfeiture of the issue on appeal.
Pena v. State, 2026 OK CR 8
Affirmed conviction for receiving proceeds from drug activity. Testimony of the arresting troopers’ observations prior to searching his vehicle, including facts about the drug trade, the flow of drugs and money through Oklahoma, and specific factors about the packaging and secreting of currency which is indicate unlawful proceeds, was properly admitted. Most jurors have no frame of reference for proof of drug-tainted currency. Expert testimony is often required to even establish that the currency is contraband. Most of the evidence was introduced to support the inference that the currency was the result of illegal drug activity. A narcotics agent’s expert opinion that defendant’s actions were consistent with smuggling drug money was error. The agent’s testimony was about illegal drug trafficking and bulk currency linked to the drug trade. The prosecutor described each fact and asked the expert whether it was consistent or inconsistent with drug trafficking. This testimony effectively told the jury what conclusion to reach on the ultimate issue and usurped the province of the jury. Because of the ample properly admitted evidence, the error creates no grave doubts that the outcome was materially affected, and requires no relief.
Acosta v. State, 2026 OK CR 9
Affirmed denial of post-conviction relief. Trial court found petitioner’s application as untimely under amendment to 22 O.S.Supp.2022, § 1080.1, requiring that application must be filed within one year of the date the conviction became final, defined as one year from the conclusion of the direct review by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals or the expiration of the time for seeking such review by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Statutory definition of finality does not include commonly accepted definition of finality, which includes the 90 days for seeking certiorari review to U.S. Supreme Court, but Legislature’s intent to use a different definition of finality and require a shorter limitations period is clear.
Terry v. Drummond, 2026 OK CR 10
Answered four certified questions interpreting the riot statute, 21 O.S.2021, § 1311. Held: (1) that Counterman v. Colorado is inapplicable in a riot prosecution. The State must prove the defendant acted willfully pursuant to 21 O.S.2021, § 92. Counterman‘s holding that the State must prove the mens rea of recklessness in a threats prosecution is not controlling because proof of the elements in a Section 1311 riot prosecution more than proves conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the statements could be regarded as threatening violence; (2) Section 1311 covers speech although not in the same way statutes penalizing pure speech do; (3) The “threat” referred to in Section 1311 does not cover only “true threats”. The threat is integral to the criminal activity of riot and not protected by the First Amendment; (4) Prosecutions under Section 1311 are not threats prosecutions which target and rely upon the content of the defendant’s speech for conviction. Satisfaction of all the elements of riot supports a finding the defendant acted, at least, with the recklessness required by Counterman.
Steel v. State, 2026 OK CR 13
Affirmed conviction for lewd or indecent proposal to a child. Statutory element that a proposal to a child involve “unlawful sexual relations or intercourse with any person” is not limited to a lewd proposal to engage in intercourse. Title 21, Section 1123(A)(1) does not clearly define “sexual relations.” But the statute is comprehensive in its protections of children from improper sexual activity or proposals. The disjunctive “or,” before sexual intercourse, and the the dictionary definition of sexual relations to include physical sexual activity that is not intercourse, mean that all other prohibited conduct in Section 1123(A) is “unlawful sexual relations.” Appellant’s suggestion to the victim that they watch pornography and masturbate together, which violates the plain language of the statute, involved unlawful sexual relations.
McKelvy v. State, 2026 OK CR 14
Reversed order accelerating deferred judgment. Defendant pled guilty to grand larceny. Judgment was deferred pending completion of the Delayed Sentencing Program for Youthful Adults. Defendant tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. State moved to accelerate the deferred judgment. The trial court accelerated to judgment and sentenced Appellant to a 5 year suspended sentence. This was error. A single failed drug test is a “technical violation” of the conditions of a deferred sentence by statute. 22 O.S.Supp.2018, § 991c(F) provides that deferred judgment may not be accelerated for any technical violation unless a petition is filed and competent evidence presented to the court. But 22 O.S.Supp.2021, § 991c(G) states that “upon any violation of the deferred judgment, other than a technical violation, the court may enter a judgment of guilt and proceed as provided in Section 991a of this title or may modify any condition imposed.” Trial judges no longer have authority to accelerate a deferred sentence and impose a felony sentence based only on a technical violation. Acceleration of a deferred sentence based solely on technical violations is limited to a sanction of ninety days in jail for a first technical violation, and up to five years in prison for a second or subsequent violation. 22 O.S.Supp.2021, 991c(F). The Legislature unambiguously removed this class cases from the trial judge’s authority to convict the defendant and impose a final prison sentence.
State v. Russell, 2026 OK CR 15
Reversed order suppressing evidence. The Court has jurisdiction of this appeal under 22 O.S., section 1053 (6) and Crawford v. State, 2026 OK CR 4. The Crawford majority agreed that pre-trial rulings suppressing or excluding evidence based on violations of constitutional rights are appealable. This appeal involves Miranda and the privilege against self-incrimination and is within the statute. Defendant was standing outside his house as a search warrant was executed when he made incriminating statements in response to unwarned questions. He was never handcuffed, was not arrested after the search, and was never told he had to stay during the search. The trial court held that his subjective belief that he could not leave amounted to custody requiring Miranda warnings. Custody involves arrest or restraint associated with a formal arrest. The relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood that he was not free to leave. The trial court erred in holding that defendant’s subjective belief that he was not free to leave his front lawn was custody requiring the Miranda warnings before questioning.
Sorrell v. State, 2026 OK CR 16
Affirmed conviction for lewd or indecent acts. The prosecutor improperly bolstered testimony of the child victim with witnesses who testified before the victim’s credibility was attacked. Bostering is the pre-emptive rehabilitation of a witness. This type of opinion evidence supporting the victim’s credibility, before her credibility was attacked, violates section 2608 of the Evidence Code. Defense counsel’s opening statement mentioning the victim’s inconsistent statements and suggesting she had fabricated the allegations was not evidence and therefore not an attack that triggered the ability to support her testimony with opinion testimony on her truthfulness. The error was harmless because the victim’s testimony was consistent, her alleged motivation for fabricating the allegations was refuted by other evidence, and the defendant tried to kill himself after the charge, indicating his consciousness of guilt.