Lesser-included Instruction Should Have Been Given; State Capital Habeas Petitioner Gets Relief
Phillips v. Workman, 2010 WL 1882313 (10th Cir. 2010).
Tenth Circuit grants habeas relief in Oklahoma capital case. Defendant was convicted of first-degree malice aforethought murder after he stabbed a teenager in a parking lot with a pocketknife for no apparent reason other than racial animosity, intoxication, and, possibly, mental illness. There was some question before trial about the defendant's competence. The defendant sought to present this evidence in support of an instruction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. However, the Oklahoma state court refused to allow the defendant to present evidence of his emotional state and history of abuse by his father, agreeing with the state that it was mitigation evidence that could only be proffered at the sentencing phase, and refused an instruction on second-degree depraved mind murder. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
The Oklahoma courts on direct appeal and habeas proceedings affirmed the conviction. In federal court, the defendant argued that the state courts' decision was contrary to clearly established federal law, specifically Beck v. Alabama, 447 US 625 (1980). The district court agreed, but the Tenth reversed, holding that the OK courts and the district court failed to properly apply Beck:
1. Depraved-mind second-degree murder was and now is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder under Oklahoma law (the Tenth spends some time on the meanderings of the OK courts on this issue).
2. The Tenth noted that, in Beck, the Court held that “a sentence of death [may not] constitutionally be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense, when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict.” In this case, the OK courts improperly focused on the evidence that supported the conviction of first-degree murder, and failed to acknowledge the evidence that would have supported the lesser-included offense.
3. There was evidence from which a jury could have rationally concluded that Defendant was severely emotionally disturbed and not had the requisite mens rea for first-degree murder.
Accordingly, relief was granted with instructions that the district court conditionally grant the writ, subject to the state's right to retry the defendant within a reasonable time.
Tenth Circuit grants habeas relief in Oklahoma capital case. Defendant was convicted of first-degree malice aforethought murder after he stabbed a teenager in a parking lot with a pocketknife for no apparent reason other than racial animosity, intoxication, and, possibly, mental illness. There was some question before trial about the defendant's competence. The defendant sought to present this evidence in support of an instruction on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. However, the Oklahoma state court refused to allow the defendant to present evidence of his emotional state and history of abuse by his father, agreeing with the state that it was mitigation evidence that could only be proffered at the sentencing phase, and refused an instruction on second-degree depraved mind murder. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.
The Oklahoma courts on direct appeal and habeas proceedings affirmed the conviction. In federal court, the defendant argued that the state courts' decision was contrary to clearly established federal law, specifically Beck v. Alabama, 447 US 625 (1980). The district court agreed, but the Tenth reversed, holding that the OK courts and the district court failed to properly apply Beck:
1. Depraved-mind second-degree murder was and now is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder under Oklahoma law (the Tenth spends some time on the meanderings of the OK courts on this issue).
2. The Tenth noted that, in Beck, the Court held that “a sentence of death [may not] constitutionally be imposed after a jury verdict of guilt of a capital offense, when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict.” In this case, the OK courts improperly focused on the evidence that supported the conviction of first-degree murder, and failed to acknowledge the evidence that would have supported the lesser-included offense.
3. There was evidence from which a jury could have rationally concluded that Defendant was severely emotionally disturbed and not had the requisite mens rea for first-degree murder.
Accordingly, relief was granted with instructions that the district court conditionally grant the writ, subject to the state's right to retry the defendant within a reasonable time.
posted by Anonymous at 8:56 AM
<< Home