Source: http://www.murderpedia.org/male.H/h1/hamilton-corey-duane.htm
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 19:45:48
Document Index: 503511379

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 836', '§ 2801', '§ 2801', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 701', '§ 2254', '§ 2253']

Corey Duane Hamilton | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers
Joseph Gooch, Theodore Kindley, Senaida Lara and Steven Williams (restaurant employees)
During a robbery of Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken in Tulsa, Hamilton and three accomplices herded four employees into the restaurant's walk-in cooler and shot each once in the back of the head at close range with a .38 handgun, then left to die.
William Hamilton, Corey Hamilton's brother, Donnie Daniels and Tyrone Johnson all were sentenced to life in prison for their part in the crime.
"I wish everybody could experience the love of God the way I have experienced it. I love everybody and hope to see you on the other side," Hamilton said in his last statement, prison spokesman Jerry Massie said. Hamilton's last meal was a combination barbecue platter, with chicken, chopped brisket, ribs and hot links, baked beans, bread and barbecue sauce.
Associated Press - Jan. 11, 2007
Fourteen years after brutal murders, victim's families still remember
By Chad Previch - The Oklahoman
Associated Press - January 10, 2007
The gun was recovered from a field near the apartment complex where Corey Hamilton lived. Co-defendant Donnie Daniels' blue Chevrolet automobile was found parked at the apartment complex where Hamilton lived.
A woman who resided behind Lee's testified that she observed a black male drive a blue Chevrolet up and down 9th Street several times. He picked up another black male, wearing a distinctive shirt with a blue seven, who retrieved what appeared to be a shotgun from a ditch. She also observed the male with the blue seven shirt with what appeared to be a shotgun as he walked across the street under the lights. He then proceeded to walk up the wood embankments on the side of Lee's and behind the privacy fence at Lee's.
Another witness testified he saw three black males. The first two he saw standing in a field between a car lot and a vacant building. He described them as between 20 and 25 years of age. The first male, wearing all black clothes, went behind the building never to be seen again. The second male, wearing black shorts and a black top with a gold number seven on it, met up with a third male who was wearing a dark top and white "fleece" looking shorts.
The witness further testified he saw the second male with a long gun to his side and a white bag in his hand. Both men got into a blue Chevrolet, which the witness had observed earlier going up and down the street several times.
As Hamilton and Daniels entered the door of Lee's and were met by Kindley, Hamilton pulled the gun and told Kindley to lock the doors, which he did. The other three Lee's employees, Lara, Gooch, and Williams, were told to go into the walk-in cooler. There, they were made to kneel down. Kindley was up front attempting to open the store safe.
Will Hamilton, carrying the shotgun, was guarding the back door. After Hamilton got the money from the safe, he placed Kindley in the cooler. Daniels walked out on the loading deck area and, shortly thereafter, heard shots from inside. Daniels walked away from the store and did not return. When the four men met a short time later, Hamilton told them that he shot "Ted and Sandy and them."
937 P.2d 1001
Case Number: F-93-1366
COREY DUANE HAMILTON, Appellant -vs- STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee
[937 P.2d 1004]
¶1 Corey Duane Hamilton, hereinafter referred to as Appellant, was tried and convicted by jury of the crimes of Robbery with a Firearm (Count I) and Murder in the First Degree, Malice Aforethought and Felony (Counts II - V) in Case No. CF-92-3584 in the District Court of Tulsa County before the Honorable Jay D. Dalton, District Judge. The jury found four aggravating circumstances as to each victim: (1) Appellant had knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; (2) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel; (3) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution; and (4) that Appellant would constitute a continuing threat to society. The trial judge sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury's recommendation of 500 years imprisonment for Count I and death for Counts II - V. From these judgments and sentences, Appellant has perfected this appeal.
¶2 On August 17, 1993, State's witness Gaylon Frazier discovered the bodies of four employees of Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken Restaurant, hereinafter "Lee's." They were found dead in the cooler of the restaurant. Dr. Distefano testified that all four died of close range gun shot wounds to the back of the head. The gun was recovered from a field near the apartment complex where Appellant lived. Co-defendant Donnie Daniels' blue Chevrolet automobile was found parked at the apartment complex where appellant lived.
¶3 Lisa Frazier, who resides behind Lee's, testified that she observed a black male drive a blue Chevrolet up and down 9th Street several times. He picked up another black male, wearing a distinctive shirt with a blue seven, who retrieved what appeared to be a shotgun from a ditch. She also observed the male with the blue seven shirt with what appeared to be a shotgun as he walked across the street under the lights. He then proceeded to walk up the wood embankments on the side of Lee's and behind the privacy fence at Lee's.
¶4 Another witness, John Andrew Waltrip, testified he saw three black males. The first [937 P.2d 1005] two he saw standing in a field between a car lot and a vacant building. He described them as between 20 and 25 years of age. The first male, wearing all black clothes, went behind the building never to be seen again. The second male, wearing black shorts and a black top with a gold number seven on it, met up with a third male who was wearing a dark top and white "fleece" looking shorts. Waltrip further testified he saw the second male with a long gun to his side and a white bag in his hand. Both men got into a blue Chevrolet, which Waltrip has observed earlier going up and down the street several times.
¶5 Denicsha Gunter, Daniels' girlfriend, testified that Daniels was wearing blue cut-off shorts, blue jacket and a black t-shirt on the night in question. Mildred Elaine Mangrum testified that Appellant was wearing a blue Bugle Boy tank top and white shorts with black stripes on them on the night in question.
¶6 Daniels, the co-defendant, testified that during the evening hours of August 17, 1993, he, Appellant, Will and Johnson played cards at Gunter's home. Earlier in the day, Daniels and Johnson had obtained a .38 caliber pistol from a relative of Johnson's. They discussed robbing Lee's. Daniels was a former employee of Lee's and was familiar with the closing procedures of the restaurant and with the procedure for opening the restaurant's safe.
¶7 After discussing the robbery, the four men went back into Gunter's apartment and changed clothes. The men left at approximately 9:45 p.m., taking Daniels' car, so that they could be at Lee's before 10:00 p.m. when it closed. In addition to the .38 pistol, the men also had a shotgun. Appellant and Daniels knew that both Ted Kindley and Sandy Lara were working at Lee's that night and would recognize them. However, they did nothing to disguise their appearance.
¶8 As Appellant and Daniels entered the door of Lee's and were met by Kindley, Appellant pulled the gun and told Kindley to lock the doors, which he did. The other three Lee's employees, Lara, Gooch, and Williams, were told to go into the walk-in cooler. There, they were made to kneel down. Kindley was up front attempting to open the store safe. Will Hamilton, carrying the shotgun, was guarding the back door. After Appellant got the money from the safe, he placed Kindley in the cooler. Daniels walked out on the loading deck area and, shortly thereafter, heard shots from inside. Daniels walked away from the store and did not return. When the four men met a short time later, Appellant told them that he shot "Ted and Sandy and them."
¶9 Other facts will be discussed as pertinent to the relevant propositions of error.
¶10 Because Appellant's first and seventeenth propositions of error contain a similar issue, they will be considered together. In his first proposition of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court's application of Article II, § 20,2 of the Oklahoma Constitution in this case violated due process, equal protection, right to counsel and the ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
¶11 The record reveals that at 5:00 p.m. on November 10, 1993, Appellant was given oral and written notice that any or all of the co-defendants might be called as a witness. Thursday, November 11, 1993, was Veterans Day, a legal holiday. Trial commenced on Monday, November 15. Thus, Appellant argues that he was given one working day's notice that any or all co-defendants might testify. Defense counsel informed the trial court that when she learned from an article in the local Saturday newspaper that Daniels would actually testify, she prepared a motion for continuance which was argued on the morning of trial. It was at this time that she learned from the State that Daniels would actually testify. The trial court denied [937 P.2d 1006] Appellant's motion for a continuance reasoning that while the State failed to comply with the Allen v. District Court, 803 P.2d 1164 (Okl.Cr.1990) order, it did comply with Article II, § 20. Additionally, the trial court noted that Daniels would be the State's last witness, thus giving Appellant opportunity to interview him.
¶12 However, Appellant argues that he was forced into trial without complete discovery of Daniels' testimony and without time to modify jury selection, cross-examination,3 closing arguments, or his decision as to whether to testify, i.e. his whole trial strategy. With Daniels' testimony, the case against Appellant was changed from a totally circumstantial evidence case to a direct evidence case. In addition, defense counsel's prepared mitigation, which had been furnished to the State, had become a powerful tool for the State in its argument for the death penalty. See Prosecutorial Misconduct, No. 6, infra. Additionally, defense counsel was not given permission to interview Daniels until the third day of trial. Daniels testified on the fourth day.
¶13 Appellant concedes that his preparation for Daniels' testimony included a "two-hour video, a seventy (70) page transcription of his [Daniels'] statement to the police, and a forty (40) page transcription of the testimony at his [Daniels'] trial." We note that Appellant had nine (9) days from November 10, 1993, to prepare for Daniels' testimony. Defense counsel must have been aware that a co-defendant could testify due to a plea bargain. This often happens just before trial and the attorney must be prepared. Thus, we find Appellant had adequate time to prepare for Daniels' testimony. See Article II, § 20. We also find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a continuance. This proposition is denied.
¶14 In light of the foregoing, we find no merit in proposition seventeen wherein Appellant argues that the failure to give notice of a critical witness [Daniels] denied him the opportunity to investigate Daniels and to revise his trial strategy to meet the surprise testimony of Daniels.
¶15 Appellant argues in proposition seven that because the Information failed to allege the essential elements of the underlying felony, Robbery with a Firearm, in Felony Murder Counts II - V, the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction.
¶16 This issue was recently addressed by this Court in Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okl.Cr.1996), where we held that "any failure to allege facts constituting the offense raises due process questions but does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction." Id. at 985. We further held that "a trial court's jurisdiction is triggered by the filing of an Information alleging the commission of a public offense with appropriate venue." Id. Thus, a due process violation due to insufficiency of the Information does not necessarily mean that jurisdiction was not conferred. In the instant case, the trial court did have jurisdiction. This proposition is without merit.
¶17 In his fourth proposition of error, Appellant claims that the trial court committed reversible error when, over his objection, flight instructions were given. Appellant argues that this Court's holding in Rivers v. State, 889 P.2d 288 (Okl.Cr.1994) making our holding in Mitchell v. State, 876 P.2d 682 (Okl.Cr.1993) prospective only is erroneous. Appellant reasons that this Court's finding in Mitchell that the flight instruction in question assumes the defendant committed the crime, in effect, found that the flight instruction presumed the defendant guilty. Thus, appellant argues that he was deprived of the following constitutional or statutory rights:
[937 P.2d 1007]
¶18 Appellant asserts that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because the instruction, by assuming that he committed the crime, took away his presumption of innocence. He relies on Flores v. State, 896 P.2d 558 (Okl.Cr.1995) where we held the presumption of innocence to be a fundamental statutory right guaranteed to every criminal defendant. See 22 O.S.1991, § 836. We do not agree with Appellant's premise that because the instruction "assumes the defendant to have committed the alleged crime," that the instruction presumes the defendant guilty of committing the alleged crime. Therefore, we do not find Flores applicable. Additionally, we note that the jury was given specific instructions regarding the presumption of innocence.
¶19 This Court has made clear that Mitchell is prospective in application. Cooper v. State, 889 P.2d 293, 310 (Okl.Cr.1995) overruled on other grounds, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d. 498 (1996); Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431, 446 (Okl.Cr.1995) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 678, 133 L.Ed.2d 527 (1995); Rivers v. State, 889 P.2d at 292. Appellant's trial was conducted prior to our ruling in Mitchell. Thus, we will determine if the flight instruction given in this case was proper under the standard used prior to Mitchell. Specifically, we must determine whether, when viewed in the context of the other evidence, the evidence of Appellant's alleged flight tends to establish guilt.
¶20 In this case, the pivotal question is whether Appellant was one of the men who committed the robbery and took part in the murders. Evidence was presented that Appellant was one of the four men who planned and carried out the robbery. Evidence was also presented as to the clothing Appellant wore during the commission of the robbery and murders. There was also evidence that Appellant met the co-defendants to divide the stolen money. Further, the murder weapon was found near Appellant's apartment complex and a search of his van led to the discovery of a box of 12-gauge shotgun shells, a Lee's jacket, and a Tulsa World newspaper article about the murders. The evidence also revealed that Appellant and Will left Tulsa on the night of the murders without retrieving their belongings. The brothers traveled to Detroit, Michigan, where they were ultimately found. We find that, when viewed in the context of the other evidence, the evidence of Appellant's alleged flight tends to establish guilt. Thus, the flight instruction was properly given under Farrar v. State, 505 P.2d 1355, 1360-61 (Okl.Cr.1973). This contention is without merit.
¶21 Appellant contends that his right to a trial by jury was violated because the flight instruction directed the jury to presume Appellant committed the crimes charged and by so doing precluded the jury from making an independent factual determination of each element of the offenses charged. Based on our determination in No. 1 above, this contention is moot.
¶22 Appellant argues that the flight instruction is analogous to denying him the right to testify. He relies on Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 52-53, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2708-10, 97 L.Ed.2d. 37, 46-47 (1987), where the Supreme Court held the right to testify "is essential to due process in a fair adversary process" and "the choice of whether to testify in one's own defense is an exercise of the constitutional privilege." Thus, where the flight instruction is given, without prior notice, after the close of the case, the State per se impermissibly infringed on his constitutional right to testify. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Additionally, Appellant has offered no authority to support his contention. This Court has consistently held that where there is no case authority to support an argument and it is apparent that the appellant has not been deprived of any fundamental rights, we will not do the attorney's work nor search the books for authorities. See Wilson v. State, 737 P.2d 1197, 1204 (Okl.Cr.1987). This contention is denied.
[937 P.2d 1008]
¶23 To support his claim that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, Appellant relies on this Court's finding in Mitchell: "Throughout the history of the judicial development of our law on flight instructions as it pertains to departure, we have required that the defendant offer evidence in explanation of such conduct." Thus, Appellant asserts that based on this finding, he did not plan to testify at trial and defense counsel could not have foreseen that the trial court would give the flight instruction where Appellant did not testify or otherwise offer evidence in explanation of flight. Appellant also argues that because the flight instruction was given after the close of the case and the opportunity to testify or to otherwise controvert flight evidence had passed, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
¶24 First, we are at a loss as to how defense counsel could rely on our holding in Mitchell when Mitchell was decided after Appellant's trial. Second, Appellant has failed to show this Court how he was denied his right to counsel. Third, we are not persuaded by counsel's argument about ineffective assistance of counsel. Fourth, counsel offers no authority to support her contention. This Court has consistently held that where there is no case authority to support an argument and it is apparent that the appellant has not been deprived of any fundamental rights, we will not search the books for authorities. See Wilson, 737 P.2d at 1204. This contention is denied.
¶25 Appellant contends that because the flight instruction (1) stripped him of the presumption of innocence and (2) relieved the State of its burden of proof of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the sentencing stage was tainted and unreliable under Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). Having found no merit in any of the foregoing, this contention is moot. This proposition of error is denied.
¶26 In his eighth proposition of error, Appellant claims the part of OUJI-CR 82, which reads, "you may not consider this impeachment evidence as proof of innocence or guilt[,]" improperly instructed the jury it could not consider the impeachment evidence as substantive evidence of guilt. Impeachment evidence was offered against State's witnesses, Gunter and Daniels. Appellant claims the State could not prove either the fact or extent of his involvement in the crimes apart from their testimony. Both witnesses admitted they lied under oath, Gunter at preliminary hearing and Daniels at his trial.
¶27 In our recent decision in Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okl.Cr.1995), this Court addressed the use of impeachment evidence in the form of inconsistent statements for substantive purposes. We expressly held that inconsistent statements which meet the requirements of 12 O.S.1991, § 2801(4)(a)(1), may be considered as substantive evidence. Id. at 300. Additionally, we held that inconsistent statements made to police whether sworn or unsworn do not meet the requirements of § 2801(4)(a)(1) because the statements are not made during any trial, hearing, deposition or proceeding. Thus, the statements can only be used for impeachment purposes. Id. at 302.
¶28 In this case, Gunter's inconsistent statements made at preliminary hearing and Daniels' inconsistent statements made during his trial can be used for substantive purposes. Any inconsistent statements made by them to police officers could be used for impeachment purposes only. Thus, the jury should have been instructed that any sworn inconsistent statements made during any trial, hearing, deposition or proceeding could be used as substantive evidence. However, in light of the overwhelming uncontradicted evidence of guilt we find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
¶29 In his ninth proposition of error, Appellant asks this Court to reverse his [937 P.2d 1009] conviction for Robbery with a Firearm with directions to dismiss because the felony murder theory under which he was convicted was based on the underlying felony of Robbery With a Firearm. See Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977). In this case, Appellant was found guilty under both the felony murder theory and the malice aforethought theory. Appellant cites Hain v. State, 852 P.2d 744, 752 (Okl.Cr.1993) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1402, 128 L.Ed.2d. 75 (1994) and Castro v. State, 745 P.2d 394, 405 (Okl.Cr.1987) cert. denied, 485 U.S. 971, 108 S.Ct. 1248, 99 L.Ed.2d 446 (1988) in support of his position that where alternative theories are charged, the verdict must be interpreted as one of felony murder in order for a defendant to receive the benefit of the rule precluding conviction of a lesser crime necessary to prove the greater crime.
¶30 The State is correct in pointing out that in Hain the jury did not indicate under which of the two theories it based its guilty verdict. However, in Hain, this Court relied on the following language in Munson v. State, 758 P.2d 324, 332 (Okl.Cr.1988) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 820, 102 L.Ed.2d. 809 (1989):
¶31 Tenth, Appellant asks this Court to reverse his conviction or in the alternative remand this case for an evidentiary hearing because the trial court failed to conduct an inquiry to determine the facts alleged in his motion for substitute counsel at the end of the first stage of trial. Appellant alleged (1) that he had been denied effective representation in the first stage, (2) that the Chief Public Defender had changed his view on capital punishment, (3) that news coverage had denied him a fair trial, and (4) that the trial judge's son, employed by the Tulsa County Public Defender's office, had compromised his representation by aiding the State. The trial judge summarily overruled Appellant's motion.
¶32 First, Appellant's reliance on Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) is misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court held the failure to conduct inquiry to ascertain the risks in conflicted representation was reversible error. We find no such issue here. Second, Appellant has failed to develop his argument beyond bald assertions. This Court has consistently held "[w]here [there is no case authority to support an argument], and it is apparent that the appellant has not been deprived of any fundamental rights, we will not search the books for authorities to support mere assertions that the trial court erred." Wilson, 737 P.2d at 1204. This argument is without merit.
¶33 In his eleventh proposition of error, Appellant asks this Court to reverse his convictions for the following comments which constituted prosecutorial misconduct:
1. "Cloak of Innocence"
¶34 In his closing argument, the prosecutor on two occasions told the jury:
Appellant asserts that these statements in effect told the jury there was no presumption of innocence to take with them in deliberations. Appellant relies on Miller v. State, [937 P.2d 1010] 843 P.2d 389 (Okl.Cr.1992) where we considered a nearly identical comment.4 We held that the comment amounted to an unconstitutional restatement of the presumption of innocence. Id. at 390. Additionally, we found that the error went to the very fundamental principle of jurisprudence. Id. We reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. However, in light of the overwhelming uncontradicted evidence of guilt in this case, we find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828, 17 L.Ed.2d at 710. Additionally, we note that the jury was given specific instructions regarding the presumption of innocence. This contention is denied.
2. "Reverse Caldwell Error"
¶35 In his closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury three times that he asked and tried as hard as he could to get the jury in Donnie Daniels' case to give him the death penalty, but the jury took pity on him whether they should have or not. Appellant claims these comments call the jury to a heightened and broader sense of responsibility to return death verdicts because a previous jury did not render death verdicts in Donnie Daniels' case despite his best efforts. This created a "reverse Caldwell5 error." We note that Appellant raised no objection to the first two remarks and raised only a general objection to the third. Therefore, he has waived all but plain error. Hunt v. State, 793 P.2d 1366, 1368 (Okl.Cr.1990); Quilliams v. State, 779 P.2d 990, 992 (Okl.Cr.1989); Harris v. State, 777 P.2d 1359, 1362 (Okl.Cr.1989). We find no plain error.
¶36 In his closing argument, the prosecutor posed the rhetorical question: "What is the explanation for calling someone to take you across the street?" Appellant asserts that this question was a comment on his right to remain silent. We note that Appellant raised no objection to this remark. Therefore, he has waived all but plain error. Hunt, 793 P.2d at 1368; Quilliams, 779 P.2d at 992; Harris, 777 P.2d at 1362. We find no plain error. However, we find that this statement was not a comment on Appellant's right to remain silent.
¶37 In his closing argument, the prosecutor made the following comments to the jury:
¶38 Appellant submits that it was prejudicial for the prosecutor to turn mitigation evidence into aggravation. He claims that the prosecutor, by negatively commenting on his mitigating [937 P.2d 1011] evidence, effectively told the jury to disregard the mitigating evidence. Thus, the jury was denied the opportunity to consider and give effect to his mitigating evidence. Appellant relies on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2947, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) where the Supreme Court, citing Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982), held: "[I]t is not enough simply to allow the defendant to present mitigating evidence to the sentencer. The sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence in imposing sentence." Appellant's reliance on Penry is misplaced. In the case at bar, unlike Penry, the jury was properly instructed as to mitigating evidence. This proposition of error is denied.
¶39 In his second proposition of error, Appellant attacks the use of victim impact evidence in Oklahoma. He concedes that this Court's recent decision in Cargle v. Oklahoma, 909 P.2d 806, 824-30 (Okl.Cr.1995) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 100, 136 L.Ed.2d. 54 (1996) has set forth the only permissible use of victim impact evidence in Oklahoma. Appellant points out that in Cargle, this Court found error in the amount and type of victim impact evidence presented to the jury. This Court held the error to be a classic trial error since it occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury and could be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶40 Here, Appellant challenges not the amount and type of victim impact evidence, but the jury's potential misuse of that evidence in the absence of instructions setting forth its appropriate use. Thus, Appellant contends this error is not mere trial error occurring during the presentation of the case to the jury, as in Cargle, but rather "structural" error as recognized in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993).
¶41 This Court in Bartell v. State, 881 P.2d 92, 98-99 (Okl.Cr.1994), held that a structural error affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, while trial error is an error in the trial process itself. As such, a trial error is subject to harmless-error standards. We find that any failure to instruct on victim impact evidence does not affect the entire conduct of the trial from beginning to end. Thus, if it is trial error, it would be subject to harmless-error analysis. In this case, the fact that the jury found four aggravating circumstances is sufficient to find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. This proposition, as well as Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request such an instruction, is denied.
¶42 Appellant's third proposition of error challenges the jury instruction on the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Appellant compares the statutory language in 22 O.S.1991, § 701.11, with Jury Instruction No. 7. Appellant contends the instruction directs the jury to weigh mitigating factors found against the aggregate of the aggravators, whereas § 701.11 requires the jury to weigh the aggregate mitigating circumstances found against each individual aggravating circumstance found. ¶43 This Court declines to construe § 701.11 in the manner requested by Appellant. We have repeatedly held that we will not establish specific standards for the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. See Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7, 23 (Okl.Cr.1995) and cases cited therein. In the instant case, the instructions clearly state that an "aggravating circumstance or circumstances [must] out weigh (sic) the findings of one or more mitigating circumstances." Thus, the jury was adequately informed that aggravators must outweigh mitigators in order for the death penalty to be imposed. This proposition, as well as Appellant's argument that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object or submit alternative instructions, is without merit.
¶44 In his fifth proposition of error, Appellant asserts that the trial court violated his due process and Eighth Amendment rights by not allowing him to present [937 P.2d 1012] evidence on the meaning of life without parole to rebut the continuing threat aggravator. The trial court sustained the State's objection to calling Steve Strode, Administrator, Oklahoma Department of Corrections, to testify that life without parole in Oklahoma means a defendant would serve his natural life in a maximum security prison. Appellant relies on Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 2198, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994) which held that the State may not "create a false dilemma by advancing generalized arguments regarding the defendant's future dangerousness while, at the same time, preventing the jury from learning that the defendant never will be released on parole." However, this Court distinguished Simmons in Trice v. State 912 P.2d 349, 352 (Okl.Cr.1996) and held that it was not error to not define life without parole. Thus, this proposition is meritless.
¶45 In proposition six, Appellant asserts that his convictions for both malice murder and felony murder were used by the state as non-statutory aggravators violating his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights. Appellant offers no direct case authority in support of this contention, instead making mere bald assertions. "An appellant must support his allegations of error by both argument and citation of authority." Wilson, 737 P.2d at 1204. "Where this is not done, and it is apparent that the appellant has not been deprived of any fundamental rights, we will not search the books for authorities to support mere assertions that the trial court erred." Id. Thus, this proposition is without merit.
¶46 In his twelfth proposition of error, Appellant contends that the aggravator, heinous, atrocious, or cruel must fail as a matter of constitutional law because the jury was not instructed on mental torture. In Rogers v. State, 890 P.2d 959, 977 (Okl.Cr.) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 312, 133 L.Ed.2d. 215 (1995), this Court held that "a victim must be conscious in order to suffer torture or serious physical abuse, but this is not a separate element on which the jury must be instructed." Thus, the trial court was not required to give an instruction on mental torture. We find no merit in this proposition.
¶47 Appellant in his thirteenth proposition argues that the aggravator "continuing threat" is unconstitutional as applied in Oklahoma. This Court has repeatedly rejected this argument and we are not persuaded to alter our prior position, notwithstanding Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F. Supp. 1529 (E.D.Okl.1995). See Cooper, 889 P.2d at 315; Malone v. State, 876 P.2d 707, 715-16 (Okl.Cr.1994) and cases cited therein; Walker v. State, 887 P.2d 301, 320 (Okl.Cr.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 166, 133 L.Ed.2d. 108 (1995). Appellant's proposition is without merit.
¶48 In proposition fourteen, Appellant contends that aggravators heinous, atrocious, or cruel; knowingly creating a great risk of death to more than one person; and, killing in order to avoid prosecution are violative of both federal and state constitutions as they are vague and overbroad. This Court has reviewed and rejected these arguments previously. For cases addressing the unconstitutionality of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator, see Cooper, 889 P.2d at 313; Nuckols v. State, 805 P.2d 672, 674 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 960, 111 S.Ct. 2276, 114 L.Ed.2d 727 (1991). For cases addressing the unconstitutionality of knowingly creating a great risk of death to more than one person, see Malone, 876 P.2d at 716; Cartwright v. State, 695 P.2d 548 (Okl.Cr.1985); Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203 (10th Cir.1986), on rehearing, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir.1987), affirmed, 486 U.S. 356, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988).
¶49 Appellant's argument regarding the issue of the unconstitutionality of the killing in order to avoid prosecution aggravator was presented in Cooper, 889 P.2d at 314. In Cooper, finding that because the appellant's contention was not supported with relevant [937 P.2d 1013] argument and authority, we did not address it. In this case, we also find that Appellant did not support this contention with relevant argument and authority. Therefore, we will not address it. Id. At 314. As in Cooper, we note the Oklahoma death penalty statutes have been held previously to be constitutional. Id. This proposition of error must fail.
¶50 In his fifteenth proposition of error, Appellant argues that there is a likelihood that the submitted jury instructions led the jury to believe that mitigation findings had to be unanimous to be considered in the weighing process. This argument was addressed and rejected in Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92, 123 (Okl.Cr.1995) cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 151, 136 L.Ed.2d. 96 (1996). Thus, this proposition is without merit.
¶51 In his sixteenth proposition of error, Appellant claims it was error for the trial court to give an anti-sympathy instruction because the instruction vitiated consideration of mitigation. We reject this argument as we have on numerous occasions. See Romano v. State, 847 P.2d 368 (Okl.Cr.1993) aff'd ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2004, 129 L.Ed.2d. 1 (1994); Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 574 (Okl.Cr.1989), cert. denied 494 U.S. 1060, 110 S.Ct. 1538, 108 L.Ed.2d. 777 (1990); Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1149-50 (Okl.Cr.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 934, 114 S.Ct. 349, 126 L.Ed.2d 313 (1993); Clayton v. State, 840 P.2d 18, 34 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1008, 113 S.Ct. 1655, 123 L.Ed.2d 275 (1993); Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1372 (Okl.Cr.1992) cert. denied, 509 U.S. 908, 113 S.Ct. 3005, 125 L.Ed.2d. 697 (1993).
¶52 In his eighteenth proposition of error, Appellant asserts that the evidence used to support the aggravating circumstances in this case is insufficient as a matter of law because the aggravators are unconstitutional. This contention has been addressed in propositions five, seven, thirteen, and fourteen, supra, and is without merit.
¶53 In proposition twenty, Appellant asks this Court to find that the cumulative error in this case requires reversal. We found reversible error in proposition nine which resulted in the Robbery with a Firearm charge being remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. However, in as much as we found all other errors to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we find no cumulative error requiring reversal. This proposition is denied.
IV. POST TRIAL ISSUE
¶54 In his nineteenth proposition of error, Appellant itemizes seventeen (17) additional "non-frivolous" issues which were not presented because he was denied a page extension of sixty-five pages in which to present said issues. Appellant asserts that he was in effect denied access to this Court "where the failure to raise critical issues may result in procedural default and result in the affirmation of death sentences despite valid issues." We have considered the cases relied on by Appellant and find none support his argument. The word "Brief" should mean that. If the rules would allow more pages, the defense would ask for even more. There must be a limit and this Court is more than reasonable. This proposition is denied.
¶55 Pursuant to 21 O.S.1991, § 701.13(C), we must determine (1) whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor, and (2) whether the evidence supports the jury's finding of aggravating circumstances as enumerated in 21 O.S.1991, § 701.12. We shall first determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the imposition of the death penalty.
¶56 The jury found the following aggravators:
[937 P.2d 1014]
¶57 As mitigation, Appellant offered:
5. that the judgment and sentence for Robbery with a Firearm is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to DISMISS.
5, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2639, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) (holding it error to diminish the jury's responsibility for determining the appropriateness of a death sentence by informing the jury that the appropriateness of the death sentence rested not with the jury but with the appellate court who will automatically review the sentence.)
¶1 In keeping with my special vote in Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okl.Cr.1996), I would find that the Information was sufficient on its face and therefore, Parker does not apply.
At sentencing, the jury found four aggravating circumstances as to each murder. Accordingly, upon the jury's recommendation, the trial court imposed the death penalty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed the murder convictions and death sentence on direct appeal but reversed the robbery conviction. See Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d 1001 (Okla.Crim.App.1997).
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Hamilton v. Oklahoma, 522 U.S. 1059, 118 S.Ct. 716, 139 L.Ed.2d 657 (1998), and the OCCA denied state post-conviction relief in an unpublished opinion. Subsequently, Hamilton filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. The district court denied the petition but granted a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).
The background facts are not in dispute and are set forth in the OCCA's opinion on direct appeal. See Hamilton, 937 P.2d 1001. We only briefly summarize them here. On August 17, 1992, the bodies of Lee's employees Joseph Gooch, Theodore Kindley, Senaida Lara and Steven Williams were found in the restaurant's walk-in cooler. All four died of a close-range gunshot wound to the back of the head.
On the evening of the murders, Hamilton and his accomplices discussed robbing the restaurant. They arrived at the restaurant near its scheduled closing time. Upon entering, Hamilton pulled a gun and told one employee to lock the doors. The other three employees were ordered to enter the cooler and kneel. A few minutes later, after Hamilton retrieved money from the restaurant safe, he placed the fourth employee in the cooler. Hamilton later stated to his accomplices that he shot the employees.
[7] [8] Our precedent holds that “[t]he state may not use a defendant's exercise of his right to remain silent to obtain his conviction.” Jones v. Stotts, 59 F.3d 143, 146 (10th Cir.1995). See also Battenfield v. Gibson, 236 F.3d 1215, 1225 (10th Cir.2001). Where a prosecutor's remarks “ ‘concern matters that could have been explained only by the accused, ··· [they] give rise to an innuendo that the matters were not explained because [petitioner] did not testify’ and, thus, amount to indirect comment on the defendant's failure to testify.” Battenfield, 236 F.3d at 1225. (quoting Pickens v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 988, 999 (10th Cir.2000)).
Simply put, the question is “whether the language used [by the prosecutor] was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent.” Id. at 1225 (quoting Pickens, 206 F.3d at 998). Nonetheless, any error in permitting the prosecutor to comment upon the defendant's right to silence is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628-29, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).
We agree with the district court that the statement was permissible. A review of the context in which the prosecutor made the statements reveals he was discussing a particular jury instruction and was asking the jury to use their “common sense” regarding the defendant's flight. Following the statement to which Hamilton objects, the prosecutor continued, “The explanation is an obvious one. You don't want to be seen. Somehow or another you need to get a very short distance without anyone seeing you. And the police, as you know, were everywhere.” Tr. at 1202.
We further agree with the district court and the OCCA that the prosecutor's queries were entirely rhetorical and not, in essence, remarks “of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent.” United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819, 826-27 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. May, 52 F.3d 885, 890 (10th Cir.1995)). Even if the comments crossed the line, our independent review of the record convinces us any prejudice arising from the statement was harmless, see Brecht, 507 U.S. at 628-29, 113 S.Ct. 1710, and that the OCCA's resolution of the issue was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.
Hamilton argues that in Miller v. State, 843 P.2d 389, 390 (Okla.Crim.App.1992), a previous case with similar prosecutorial remarks, the OCCA reversed the defendant's conviction. In Miller, the prosecutor stated, “[t]he dust is settled ··· and that cloak [of innocence] is gone. It's been ripped away from him by the testimony of three men-four men, actually. He stands guilty as charged.” Id.
Likewise, in one of our circuit cases, Mahorney v. Wallman, 917 F.2d 469 (10th Cir.1990), the prosecutor stated, “I submit to you ··· under the law and under the evidence, that [the presumption of innocence] has been removed, that that presumption no longer exists, that that presumption has been removed by evidence and he is standing before you now guilty. That presumption is not there any more.” Id. at 471.
We need not reach the same conclusion in this context, however. Even if there were a due process violation, as with any constitutional error, we must still review for harmlessness. See Pickens, 206 F.3d at 998. The OCCA considered the circumstances at trial and determined that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the “overwhelming uncontradicted evidence of guilt [.]” Hamilton, 937 P.2d at 1010. We agree.
On this record, the evidence against Hamilton is substantial. A number of eyewitnesses placed Hamilton in the getaway car. A co-conspirator identified Hamilton as the shooter. The car and murder weapon were recovered next to Hamilton's apartment. Accordingly, we cannot conclude the OCCA misapplied federal law in determining that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215, 1232-33 n. 14 (10th Cir.2003) (In a federal habeas proceeding where a state court applied the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard set forth in Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, “we must decide whether the state court's finding of harmless error was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Chapman ”). In sum, Hamilton is not entitled to habeas relief based on statements made during the prosecutor's closing argument.
[10] [11] Under Oklahoma law, a prisoner sentenced to life without parole is not entitled to be released from prison. Hamilton argues the state trial court violated his right to due process at sentencing by denying his requests (1) to allow witness testimony, and (2) to submit an instruction explaining to the jury that he would not be parole-eligible. The OCCA rejected the claim on direct appeal.
Interpreting the Supreme Court's holding in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), which requires juries to be informed about the option of life without parole, the OCCA concluded that defendants have no constitutional right to witness testimony or a jury instruction containing such information. See Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d at 1011-12 (citing Trice v. State, 912 P.2d 349, 352 (Okla.Crim.App.1996)). Hamilton claims the OCCA's conclusion is contrary to or represents an unreasonable application of Simmons and more recent Supreme Court cases explaining its holding.FN1 We disagree.
The Supreme Court in Simmons addressed whether due process required a state trial court “to instruct the jury in the penalty phase of a capital trial that under state law the defendant was ineligible for parole.” Simmons, 512 U.S. at 156, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (plurality opinion).
The Court concluded that due process required such an instruction, but only under narrow circumstances: “[w]here the State puts the defendant's future dangerousness in issue, and the only available alternative sentence to death is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the capital sentencing jury-by either argument or instruction-that he is parole ineligible.” Id. at 178, 114 S.Ct. 2187 (O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).
The Supreme Court has reinforced this holding in subsequent cases. See Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36, 51, 121 S.Ct. 1263, 149 L.Ed.2d 178 (2001) (holding that whenever future dangerousness is at issue in a capital sentencing proceeding, due process requires the jury be informed a life sentence carries no possibility of parole); Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246, 122 S.Ct. 726, 151 L.Ed.2d 670 (2002) (where the state places a defendant's future dangerousness at issue in seeking the death penalty, the jury must be properly instructed as to the possibility of life without parole).
We have already examined Oklahoma's capital sentencing scheme in the wake of Simmons and subsequent Supreme Court authority. In Mayes v. Gibson, 210 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir.2000), we held that Oklahoma's three-option sentencing scheme-(1) death, (2) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or (3) life imprisonment-are consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings since the options do not create a “false choice between sentencing petitioner to death and sentencing him to a limited period of incarceration.” Id. at 1294. It is enough that the jury is provided the three choices.
Providing further explanation, in Mollett v. Mullin, 348 F.3d 902, 909-10 (10th Cir.2003), we held that due process concerns arise under Simmons only when four factors are met: “(1) the prosecution seeks the death penalty; (2) the prosecution places the defendant's future dangerousness at issue; (3) the jury asks for clarification of the meaning of ‘life imprisonment,’ or a synonymous statutory term; and (4) the judge's response threatens to cause a jury's misunderstanding so the jury will perceive a false choice of incarceration when future dangerousness is at issue.” Mollett, 348 F.3d at 914 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Recognizing he can meet only the first two of these factors, Hamilton acknowledges his claim does not satisfy Mollett. Instead, he asserts our cases misconstrue the Supreme Court's holding in Kelly v. South Carolina, supra, and should be revisited. In Kelly (construing South Carolina law), the Supreme Court reversed a death sentence where the trial court did not adequately explain parole eligibility when the prosecutor raised the defendant's future dangerousness.
We disagree with Hamilton's argument for two reasons. First, the Mollett court in fact examined Oklahoma's three-option sentencing scheme in light of Kelly and found it inapplicable. Mollett, 348 F.3d at 912 n. 3, 914-15, 917, 921 n. 6. Importantly, unlike in Kelly, Oklahoma's jury instructions provide a “without parole” option for the jury's consideration. Second, Hamilton points to nothing in the record on appeal that would suggest jury confusion. Without some reason to believe the jury actually was misled, Hamilton suggests a nearly per se presumption of confusion. Our prior cases foreclose that result.
[12] Hamilton next argues that the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on how to use victim impact evidence during its sentencing deliberations violated due process. At trial, Hamilton did not request such an instruction. Nor did he object to the trial court's failure to give such an instruction.
On direct appeal to the OCCA, Hamilton argued the absence of the jury instruction constituted structural error-an error so fundamental to the trial process that a retrial is required. See Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d at 1011. Rejecting the structural error argument, but agreeing that the instruction was nonetheless “trial error,” the OCCA concluded “the fact that the jury found four aggravating circumstances is sufficient to find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
Abandoning the structural error argument on appeal, Hamilton argues that the OCCA's harmless error determination was unreasonable as a matter of federal law. He claims the absence of an instruction allowed the jury to rely on the victim impact evidence to bolster its findings of four aggravating circumstances.
In support of this argument, Hamilton points to the fact the OCCA in a subsequent case established that jury instructions are necessary to clarify the difference between victim impact evidence and evidence of aggravating circumstances. See Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806, 828-29 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). Under the new requirement, jurors must consider victim impact evidence in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty only if you first find that the existence of one or more aggravating circumstance has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence independent from the victim impact evidence, and find that the aggravating circumstance(s) found outweigh the finding of one or more mitigating circumstances. Id. at 829.
In sum, Hamilton argues the victim impact evidence improperly prejudiced the jury's weighing of the evidence as to each of the four aggravating circumstances. Since the OCCA rejected Hamilton's arguments on the merits, our review is directed to whether its decision was inconsistent with federal law. At the federal district court level, Hamilton argued that the inflammatory nature of the victim impact testimony violated his due process rights under Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991).
The district court found (1) the claim was procedurally barred, and (2) Hamilton had not asserted sufficient grounds to excuse that bar. On appeal, Hamilton does not challenge the district court's determinations concerning the applicability of the procedural bar. Instead he simply reasserts the claim that the substance of the evidence violated the Constitution. To the extent Hamilton seeks to have us review the constitutionality of the substance of the admitted evidence, we are precluded from doing so. See Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1206 (10th Cir.2004) (“Generally, where a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can show either cause for the default and actual prejudice, or, alternatively, that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). We will, however, look to the substance of the evidence to the extent it is necessary to assess the OCCA's harmless error analysis.
The Supreme Court has made clear that “[a] State may legitimately conclude that evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim's family is relevant to the jury's decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed. There is no reason to treat such evidence differently than other relevant evidence is treated.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991).
In the majority of cases, such evidence “serves entirely legitimate purposes.” Id. at 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597. But in some cases, victim impact evidence could be “so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair” in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Hamilton argues the victim impact evidence presented exceeded the bounds permitted by the Supreme Court.FN3
FN3. For instance, one relative of a victim testified “God only knows the fear and sheer terror and pain and the intense agony those last few moments of his life brought him. How ··· cold he must have been in that freezer.” Tr. at 1243. Another testified “There is no greater crime than murder. It violates very human right.” Tr. at 1244. A third described one of the killings as “senseless” and stated one of the victim's “was shot in the head like an animal and killed in cold blood without mercy.” Tr. at 1247.
The OCCA concluded that no jury instruction was required. Hamilton did not ask for one; the jury moreover received detailed instructions as to how to consider the aggravating factors in their deliberations. The court then concluded “[i]n this case, the fact that the jury found four aggravating circumstances is sufficient to find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d at 1011.
We agree with the district court that even if we accept Hamilton's contention that the jury inappropriately considered the victim testimony in the context of finding aggravating circumstances, any error was harmless. At worst, the evidence characterized the crime in a way that could have influenced a finding only as to two of the four aggravating factors: (1) the murders were especially heinous, or (2) Hamilton could constitute a continuing threat to society.
The evidence could not have influenced a finding as to the other two aggravators: (3) Hamilton knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person, and (4) that he committed the murders for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution. We therefore cannot conclude the OCCA unreasonably applied federal law. The absence of a victim impact jury instruction, even if constitutionally necessary, was harmless.
[14] [15] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on a habeas corpus petition, we ask “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)(emphasis in original).
This standard reflects the “longstanding principle that it is the jury's province to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from testimony presented at trial.” Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1197 (10th Cir.2004). Our review under this standard is “ ‘sharply limited’ and a court ‘faced with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume-even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record-that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution.’ ” Messer v. Roberts, 74 F.3d 1009, 1013 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 296-97, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992)).
[16] When applying the Supreme Court's sufficiency standard in Jackson, we look to Oklahoma substantive law to determine the elements of the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. See, e.g., Turrentine, 390 F.3d at 1197. Under Oklahoma law the aggravator “requires proof that the death was preceded by torture or serious physical abuse.” Id. The OCCA has determined that the “torture” element of this aggravating factor “may take any of several forms,” including “the infliction of either great physical anguish or extreme mental cruelty.” Berget v. State, 824 P.2d 364, 373 (Okla.Crim.App.1991).
The OCCA has also concluded there are no “specific, uniform criteria, applicable to all murder cases, which would make the application of the ‘heinous, atrocious or cruel’ aggravator a mechanical procedure.” Robinson v. State, 900 P.2d 389, 401 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). “Rather, the examination of the facts of each and every case is necessary in determining whether the aggravator was proved.” Id. As we noted in Turrentine, “[t]his rule necessarily makes the determination a case by case inquiry.” Turrentine, 390 F.3d at 1197-98 (citations omitted).
[17] [18] The prosecution in this case did not attempt to argue, through medical testimony or otherwise, that the victims in this case were subjected to serious physical abuse. With this limitation, we examine the evidence solely for evidence of mental torture. We have previously stated that the evidence must support anguish that goes beyond “that which necessarily accompanies the underlying killing.” Jones v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 946, 953 (10th Cir.2000).
To that end, “[e]vidence that the victim was conscious and aware of the attack supports a finding of torture.” Id. (citing Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535, 550 (Okla.Crim.App.1997); Hooks v. Ward, 184 F.3d 1206, 1240 (10th Cir.1999); Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 556 (Okla.Crim.App.1994).
While Oklahoma law regarding the element of torture is rather unclear regarding required time frame,FN4 Oklahoma courts do require that “[a]nalysis must focus on the acts of the defendant toward the victim and the level of tension created.” Cheney v. State, 909 P.2d 74, 80 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). The OCCA has also held that “conscious[ness] ··· is the critical inquiry in determining whether a murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.” Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431, 443 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). See also Jones v. Gibson, 206 F.3d at 953 (10th Cir.2000).
The OCCA has also recognized that the presence of fellow victims in a multiple homicide, with each of the victims realizing they might be the next to die, satisfied the heinousness requirement. In Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 556 (Okla.Crim.App.1994), for example, the defendant took three women to the back of a bank and stabbed each to death.
The OCCA found sufficient evidence for the aggravator in part due to physical suffering, but also because at least two of the three victims witnessed the brutal attacks on their co-workers before the killer turned to them. A fourth victim was placed in the same room after the murders, before he was shot in the head.
In finding that the conduct constituted mental torture, the OCCA concluded, “[m]ental anguish includes the victim's uncertainty as to his ultimate fate.” Id. at 556. That same uncertainty is fully met here. Finally, we are instructed by our decision in McCracken v. Gibson, 268 F.3d 970, 982 (10th Cir.2001). In that decision, we upheld a finding of aggravation where the third and fourth victims of a quadruple homicide heard two other victims shot first and likely feared they would be next.
Hamilton counters this authority with the OCCA holding in Davis v. State, 888 P.2d 1018 (Okla.Crim.App.1995). In Davis, the court determined the evidence insufficient where two victims died of gunshot wounds but the “evidence could not predict either victim's time of death or the order in which wounds were inflicted.” Id. at 1021.
Along these lines, in Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627, 640-41 (Okla.Crim.App.1992), the OCCA found insufficient evidence to support the aggravator based on physical abuse where there was no indication whether blunt force injuries or strangulation occurred first, no evidence as to the level of suffering, and no evidence whether the victim was alive when put into a car trunk.
The OCCA concluded “[a] record so bereft of evidence leads only to speculation and not to the rational drawing of reasonable inferences.” Id. at 641. The murders here require none of the attenuated guesswork necessary in Davis and Crawford. Although it is true the record does not disclose how much time passed between the death of each victim, or how long each victim was subject to mental torture, what we do know amply supports the aggravator. For example, all were in the back cooler for at least ten minutes on their knees at gunpoint.
At least two of the victims knew Hamilton's identity and were therefore aware that his failure to wear a disguise suggested his intention to kill. Such a natural suspicion would have been confirmed after Hamilton murdered the first victim. And three witnessed the execution-style death of at least one other victim. Under this aggravator, it is not required that every victim know his fate to a certainty. In fact, uncertainty is often an aspect of cruelty inflicted upon victims. See Neill, 896 P.2d at 556. It is enough that the evidence of mental cruelty disclose that each victim likely experienced mental anguish at the hands of the defendant.
[21] Contrary to the OCCA's analysis, however, our cases explain that “[c]umulative-error analysis merely aggregates all the errors that individually have been found to be harmless, and therefore not reversible, and it analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they can no longer be determined to be harmless.” Workman v. Mullin, 342 F.3d 1100, 1116 (10th Cir.2003).
The OCCA therefore erred by failing to engage in cumulative error analysis. The very point of such a review, is to examine all the actual errors which are individually harmless to determine if together they render the defendant's trial unfair. See Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir.2003) (explaining that “to deny cumulative-error consideration of claims unless they have first satisfied their individual substantive standards for actionable prejudice would render the cumulative error inquiry meaningless, since it would be predicated only upon individual error already requiring reversal”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Because the OCCA did not consider in the aggregate the prejudicial effect of the individual errors, we review Hamilton's cumulative error claim de novo. See Malicoat v. Mullin, 426 F.3d 1241, 1263 (10th Cir.2005) (“the OCCA's opinion does not clearly indicate that it considered, in the aggregate, the prejudicial effect of the individual errors[;][a]ccordingly ··· we afford [the defendant] the benefit of the doubt and review his cumulative error claim de novo”).
We thus consider whether the two possible errors we identified in the trial-(1) whether the “cloak of innocence” statements (a first stage error), and (2) the lack of instructions on victim impact evidence (a second stage error)-together rendered the trial unfair. In assessing cumulative error, only first stage errors are relevant to the conviction, but all errors are relevant to the ultimate sentence. Darks v. Mullin, 327 F.3d 1001, 1018 (10th Cir.2003).
Even under the de novo standard, we conclude Hamilton has failed to demonstrate the cumulative effect of the individual errors deprived him of a fair trial. In light of the overwhelming evidence against him, we see nothing to suggest the prosecutor's remarks influenced the jury's finding of guilt. The lawyer's rhetorical flourish at closing pales in comparison to the physical and testimonial evidence of guilt introduced at trial.
Likewise, the omission of a victim impact instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole also could only have minimally affected the jury's consideration of the aggravated nature of the quadruple homicide.
Moreover, the victim impact evidence bore on only two of the four aggravating circumstances found by the jury, any one of which was sufficient to support the death penalty. Even together, the weight of these alleged errors did not rob Hamilton of a fair trial. We thus conclude Hamilton has failed to establish that individual harmless errors should collectively justify habeas relief.