Opinion ID: 1401004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Claims of Error in the Sentencing Phase

Text: Mr. Wilson raises several issues regarding evidence introduced by the state at the sentencing stage in support of aggravating factors. Before a death sentence is imposed in Oklahoma, the sentencer must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of at least one statutorily defined aggravating factor, and then must further find that the applicable aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.11. At the penalty phase of Mr. Wilson's proceedings, the prosecution attempted to prove three aggravating circumstances: (1) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel; (2) that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution; and (3) that it was probable that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence in the future that would constitute a continuing threat to society. In response, Mr. Wilson presented mitigating evidence, seeking to avoid a sentence of death. The jury found the existence of all three aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt and recommended a sentence of death. The judge sentenced Mr. Wilson to death. See generally Turrentine v. Mullin, 390 F.3d 1181, 1195 (10th Cir.2004).
In his first sentencing stage claim, Mr. Wilson argues that the state offered insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC), and that he was a major participant in the infliction of such suffering. He also challenges the constitutionality of the aggravator. Mr. Wilson presented these claims to the OCCA and to the district court and was denied relief. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 465; Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at -30.
Mr. Wilson argues that there was insufficient evidence at trial to prove the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator. In a sufficiency of the evidence claim on habeas corpus, the relevant question is 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). This standard reflects our system's 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 is sharply limited, and when there are conflicting facts in the record that permit disparate inferences, the Court 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. Id. at 1197 (quoting Messer v. Roberts, 74 F.3d 1009, 1013 (10th Cir.1996)). Mr. Wilson specifically argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that the murder was preceded by torture or serious physical abuse, at least one of which is required to prove the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator. See Stouffer v. State, 742 P.2d 562, 563 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). He particularly emphasizes that there was insufficient evidence of conscious physical suffering. We look to Oklahoma law to determine the substantive elements of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance. Valdez v. Bravo, 373 F.3d 1093, 1097 (10th Cir.2004). This aggravator requires proof that the death was preceded by torture or serious physical abuse. Lott v. State, 98 P.3d 318, 358 (Okla.Crim.App.2004). Torture or serious physical abuse may take any of several forms: Torture may include the infliction of either great physical anguish or extreme mental cruelty . . . [it] must be the result of intentional acts by the defendant. . . [and] must produce mental anguish in addition to that which of necessity accompanies the underlying killing. Analysis must focus on the acts of the defendant toward the victim and the level of tension created. The length of time which the victim suffers mental anguish is irrelevant. Berget v. State, 824 P.2d 364, 373 (Okla. Crim.App.1991). Physical abuse requires evidence of conscious physical suffering. Romano v. Gibson, 239 F.3d 1156, 1176 (10th Cir.2001); Medlock v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1314, 1321 (10th Cir.2000). The OCCA has also stated that 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. We engage in a case by case inquiry. Turrentine, 390 F.3d at 1197-98. The OCCA held that: The medical examiner testified that the first blow by the baseball bat could have rendered Yost unconscious. However, before the baseball bat was ever introduced into the attack, Yost was attacked and dragged into the back room by his four assailants. Yost screamed for help while the bat was being retrieved from the car. Obviously he was being restrained at that time by Wilson and another defendant. Yost suffered injuries to his hands, arguably coming from the blow from the bat, indicating defensive wounds. There was a piece of metal from the handcuff imbedded in Yost's head indicating that he had his hands between his head and the bat. In the surveillance tape noises can be heard during the attack after the baseball bat was taken to the cooler where Yost was being held. Once the bat arrived, it is possible that Yost was struck and rendered unconscious with one blow. However, we find that before the bat was brought into the attack, Yost had suffered the extreme mental anguish of being held captive, knowing that his ultimate fate rested in the hands of his attackers whom he could identify if left to live. . . . . There is ample evidence of the extreme mental anguish suffered by Yost prior to his death. This evidence illustrates the realization by Yost that he was going to be harmed and even killed by the gang of robbers who had overpowered him and dragged him into a back room. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 464-65; see also Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at . This Court addressed essentially the same argument in the case of Mr. Wilson's co-defendant, and concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, there was sufficient evidence that Mr. Yost suffered both physical anguish and extreme mental abuse while conscious. Brown, 515 F.3d at 1090. We do not reach a different conclusion. Yost's screams from the back room are audible on the videotapeproof of consciousness. Additionally, Yost was attacked, dragged into the back room, bound, and handcuffed. The fact that Yost's killers bound his arms and legs is evidence in this case that he was conscious during at least part of the attack; there would be no need to bind a dead person. . . . Romano, 239 F.3d at 1176-77. There were defensive wounds on Yost's hands, fingers, and wrists, and the autopsy revealed a hinge from the handcuffs embedded in his scalp, suggesting Yost had raised his hands in a defensive posture. Tr. Trans. 2/13/1997, at 30, 37. This too supports an inference that Mr. Yost did not lose consciousness immediately upon the attack. See Brown, 515 F.3d at 1090; Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1147 (Okla.Ct.Crim.App.1993). But even assuming that Yost was rendered unconscious by the first blow of the bat, he was a victim of physical abuse before the bat struck his head. Likewise, there is evidence of extreme mental anguish. Evidence that the victim was conscious and aware of the attack supports a finding of [mental] torture. Jones v. Gibson, 206 F.3d 946, 953 (10th Cir.2000); see also Hamilton v. Mullin, 436 F.3d 1181, 1195 (10th Cir.2006). The `[a]nalysis must focus on the acts of the defendant toward the victim and the level of tension created.' Hamilton, 436 F.3d at 1195 (quoting Cheney v. State, 909 P.2d 74, 80 (Okla.Crim.App.1995)). This is not a case where the perpetrators entered the QuikTrip and immediately killed Yost. The four surrounded Yost, attacked him, dragged him into the backroom, and bound him. Two exited while the other two remained, retrieved a baseball bat, and returned to the room with the bat. We agree with the OCCA that before the bat was even brought into the attack, Yost had suffered the extreme mental anguish of being held captive, knowing that his ultimate fate rested in the hands of his attackers whom he could identify if left to live. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 465; Hamilton, 436 F.3d at 1196. While this evidence does not compel an inference of mental torture, it permits it. We agree with the district court that the OCCA's determination was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law.
Mr. Wilson also contends that, even if there is sufficient evidence that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator should apply to Yost's murder, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that he himself participated in the beating, that he attempted to kill Yost, or that he intended to kill Yost, as the Supreme Court requires before applying capital punishment. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982). Therefore, he argues, the aggravator is inapplicable to him. Under Enmund and its progeny, when the defendant did not himself strike the blows that killed the victim, in order to be eligible for the death penalty he must either have intended to kill or have been a major participant in the felony who acted with a reckless indifference to human life. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987). The central concern of the Enmund/Tison line of Supreme Court cases is whether a conviction for felony murder contains an adequate determination of defendants' culpability such that imposition of the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Workman v. Mullin, 342 F.3d 1100, 1110 (10th Cir.2003). On the other hand, the Tison court made clear that the reckless disregard for human life implicit in knowingly engaging in criminal activities known to carry a grave risk of death represents a highly culpable mental state, a mental state that may be taken into account in making a capital sentencing judgment when that conduct causes its natural, though also not inevitable, lethal result. 481 U.S. at 157-58, 107 S.Ct. 1676. The OCCA rejected Mr. Wilson's claim, stating: In the second portion of this proposition, Wilson claims that the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator does not apply to him because he did not inflict the serious physical abuse, nor did he intend that such abuse be inflicted. Wilson, citing Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 107 S.Ct. 1676, 95 L.Ed.2d 127 (1987), correctly claims that, in a felony murder prosecution, the State must at least show that the accused substantially participated in the killing. . . . . The evidence that Wilson substantially participated in the killing is clear. Wilson was involved in the initial subduing of Yost. He admitted that he knew that Yost would be killed. Wilson even supplied the bat used to beat Yost to death. He was present in the back room when the bat was brought in by Harjo. He was present when sounds of the first blow can be heard on the audio/videotape. He had to know that a beating with a baseball bat would cause serious conscious physical suffering and death. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 465. The district court affirmed, holding that [a]s in Tison, Petitioner was, at the least, actively involved in the underlying felony of robbery. He helped subdue Yost, and was physically present during the entire sequence of criminal activity culminating in the murder of Yost and the subsequent flight by Petitioner and his co-defendants. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at . Because this is a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that Mr. Wilson had the requisite culpability. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. There is ample evidence demonstrating that Mr. Wilson intended for lethal force to be employed. See Fox v. Ward, 200 F.3d 1286, 1294 (10th Cir.2000). Detective Folks testified at trial that Mr. Wilson admitted the group made the decision to kill Yost about two weeks before the robbery occurred. Additionally, Mr. Wilson did not just serve as a look-out, as in Enmund; he was a major participant, as he assisted in the robbery's planning, subdued Yost, and was active throughout the entire robbery. He was even in the back room when Harjo and Alverson brought in the bat, and, according to the video, when the parties began hitting Yost with the bat. See Tison, 481 U.S. at 158, 107 S.Ct. 1676. Continuing with the robbery despite the knowledge that Yost would likely be killed evidences the reckless behavior required by Tison. Id. The OCCA's determination was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law.
Finally, Mr. Wilson claims that the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator was unconstitutional as applied because the jury instruction did not require a finding of consciousness, though it did require the jury to conclude that there was torture or physical abuse. R. Vol. II, Box 2, Jury Instruction 6, CR 4-73, at 370. Therefore, it did not sufficiently narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. To be acceptable under the Eighth Amendment, the aggravating circumstance must furnish a sentencer with a principled means of guiding its discretion. See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361-64, 108 S.Ct. 1853, 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988). The Tenth Circuit has routinely upheld the constitutionality of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator so long as it includes the torture or serious physical abuse limitation. See, e.g., Workman, 342 F.3d at 1115; Romano, 239 F.3d at 1176; Thomas, 218 F.3d at 1226; Medlock, 200 F.3d at 1319; Moore, 195 F.3d at 1175-76; Smallwood, 191 F.3d at 1274. Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson argues that because the jury instruction did not include the conscious suffering requirement imposed by the Oklahoma courts, the aggravator was unconstitutionally vague. His argument is foreclosed by Workman. The Workman Court approved a jury instruction stating [t]he phrase `especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel' is directed to those crimes where the death of the victim was preceded by torture of the victim or serious physical abuse. 342 F.3d at 1116. This is the same language used in Mr. Wilson's case. See also Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 654-55, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990) overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); Hatch v. Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447, 1468-69 (10th Cir.1995) overruled on other grounds by Moore v. Marr, 254 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir.2001). Even if the jury instruction did not sufficiently narrow the jury's discretion, the state court can also perform this narrowing function on review. Walton, 497 U.S. at 654, 110 S.Ct. 3047. Here, the OCCA found that there was torture in the form of extreme mental anguish, which ensured that the aggravator was not unconstitutionally vague. Mr. Wilson argues that Ring, 536 U.S. at 589, 122 S.Ct. 2428, requires a jury to perform this narrowing. Whatever the merits of this argument in the future, Ring does not apply retroactively and so is inapplicable to his case.
Mr. Wilson makes several claims related to the continuing threat aggravator. To establish that Mr. Wilson had a pattern of criminal conduct likely to continue in the future and was a continuing threat, the state offered evidence that on February 16, 1995, ten days prior to Yost's murder, police discovered a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol in Mr. Wilson's car when he was pulled over for speeding. Additionally, the state offered evidence of Mr. Wilson's prior conviction for accessory after the fact to murder. In 1994, Mr. Wilson was charged with and pled guilty to assisting in a drive-by shooting when he held the gun after the crime occurred; the state also produced evidence that he provided the ammunition used on the day of the murder. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 466.
Mr. Wilson first challenges the constitutionality of the continuing threat aggravator. Under Oklahoma law, this aggravator requires [t]he existence of a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 701.12(7). He claims that this is vague and overbroad because it does not perform the appropriate narrowing function. This claim is foreclosed by our Circuit's precedent. We have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of this aggravator. See, e.g., Sallahdin v. Gibson, 275 F.3d 1211, 1232 (10th Cir. 2002); Medlock, 200 F.3d at 1319-20; Nguyen v. Reynolds, 131 F.3d 1340, 1353-54 (10th Cir.1997). Mr. Wilson offers no reasons for us to deviate from our prior precedent, and we decline to do so today.
In support of the continuing threat aggravator, the State offered testimony by Sergeant Samuel McCullough. Sergeant McCullough testified that on February 16, 1995, ten days prior to Yost's murder, he pulled over Mr. Wilson, along with co-defendant Brown, for speeding. McCullough asked Mr. Wilson to exit the car and provide identification; because he had no identification, McCullough ordered him to sit in the patrol car. The officer asked Mr. Wilson who he was and if he had an arrest record. Mr. Wilson identified himself and told Sergeant McCullough that he had been arrested in a double homicide in October of 1994 and was awaiting sentencing on a lesser charge of accessory to murder. When McCullough asked if there were any guns or drugs present in the vehicle, Mr. Wilson offered [n]o, you can look if you want to. Tr. Trans. 2/18/97 at 55. During the consensual search of the vehicle, McCullough noticed a black aluminum baseball bat laying between the seats and a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol under the passenger seat. Id. at 56. Mr. Wilson was arrested for transporting a loaded firearm. At no point did Mr. Wilson receive Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The state offered this evidence to show that Mr. Wilson exhibited a pattern of violent activity and would be a continuing threat in the future. Mr. Wilson argues that because he did not receive any Miranda warnings, his statements to Sergeant McCullough were inadmissible. He also argues that McCullough's testimony about the gun and baseball bat was inadmissible, because his consent to search the car was given during an illegal interrogation and was therefore not voluntary; the weapons should have been excluded as fruits of this illegal interrogation. At trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of these statements because he believed they were irrelevant to the continuing threat aggravator, not because of the lack of the Miranda warning. Accordingly, the OCCA reviewed the Miranda -based claim for plain error and found that Wilson was not in custody for purposes of Miranda and that the consent to search was voluntary. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 464. The district court affirmed this decision. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at -23. It is well established that `police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question.' United States v. Erving L., 147 F.3d 1240, 1246 (10th Cir.1998) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977)). Rather, police officers must only advise individuals of their Miranda rights when they are subject to custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Because of the nonthreatening character of traffic stop detentions, persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not `in custody' for the purposes of Miranda. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Mr. Wilson was subject to a routine traffic stop. We find nothing in the record, and Mr. Wilson has pointed to nothing in the record, indicating that at any time between the initial stop and the arrest, he was subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest, triggering the need for Miranda warnings. Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 441, 104 S.Ct. 3138. The questioning was brief; Sergeant McCullough asked for Mr. Wilson's license and identification, and placed Mr. Wilson in the patrol car only after Mr. Wilson could not produce these documents. He then asked about Mr. Wilson's criminal history; once he discovered that Mr. Wilson was under investigation for a homicide, he asked whether there were any drugs or guns in the car. All of these questions are appropriate for a routine traffic stop so long as they do not prolong it excessively. United States v. Stewart, 473 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir. 1998). We therefore find that the OCCA's determination was not an unreasonable application of Miranda and its progeny. There is no evidence suggesting that Mr. Wilson's consent was involuntary, and so the testimony about the fruits of that consentthe gun and the baseball bat was not admitted in error.
Mr. Wilson also claims that the admission of his prior conviction for accessory after the fact to murder was in error. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor presented evidence in support of the continuing threat aggravator that Mr. Wilson had been charged and convicted as an accessory after the fact in a 1994 drive-by shooting. Mr. Wilson argues that this conviction involved no act of violence and therefore had no logical relationship to predictions of future dangerousness. Pet. Br. at 80. To prove the continuing threat aggravator, the state must show that a particular defendant has a pattern of criminal conduct likely to continue in the future. Douglas v. State, 951 P.2d 651, 676 (Okla.Crim.App.1997). Under Oklahoma law, a nonviolent crime standing alone cannot be the basis for finding the continuing threat aggravator. Torres v. State, 962 P.2d 3, 23 (Okla.Crim.App.1998). However, a jury is free to consider the defendant's nonviolent offenses in conjunction with other factors when determining whether the defendant poses a future risk to society. Boltz v. Mullin, 415 F.3d 1215, 1231 (10th Cir.2005). The state may introduce evidence of both adjudicated, and unadjudicated, conduct. Id. at 1230; Hatch v. Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447, 1465 (10th Cir.1995) overruled on other grounds by Daniels v. United States, 254 F.3d 1180, 1188 n. 1 (10th Cir.2001). The OCCA held that while the basis for Mr. Wilson's conviction was that he possessed the gun used in a drive-by shooting, the facts revealed that he may have been more involved in this drive-by shooting by providing ammunition for the gun on the day of the murder. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 466; see also Tr. trans. 2/18/97, at 47. Mr. Wilson does not argue that this was an unreasonable interpretation of the facts, and we must assume that it is correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Because the OCCA affirmed the jury's finding based on facts other than simply the accessory after the factnamely, that Mr. Wilson had provided ammunition for the shootingthe OCCA did not act contrary to federal law when it accounted for the conviction in its analysis of the continuing threat aggravator. Boltz, 415 F.3d at 1231.
Mr. Wilson contends that hearsay testimony introduced during the sentencing phase violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. In support of the continuing threat aggravator, the state produced the testimony of Sergeant Mike Huff. Huff testified that, on September 11, 1994, Detective Gary Meek informed Huff that Wilson was driving a vehicle which matched the description of the vehicle used in that homicide the previous night. Tr. trans. 2/18/97, at 33. As a result, Huff stopped Wilson when he spotted him driving. Mr. Wilson claims that Huff's repetition of what Meek told him was testimonial hearsay which violated his confrontation rights. Reviewing for plain error, the OCCA rejected this claim, stating that the answer was in response to questioning about why Huff was contacting Wilson. The answer was given, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain why he was contacting Wilson. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 465. The district court affirmed. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at . The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). While its protections are strong, [t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. Id. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985)); see also Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 826-27, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006); United States v. Williams, 506 F.3d 151, 156 (2d Cir.2007). First, Huff's statements were most likely not testimonial hearsay evidence. `Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(A)(3) (same). Huff's statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but instead, was offered to show Huff's motivation for stopping Mr. Wilson. Accordingly, there is no Confrontation Clause problem. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354; United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518, 525 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Trala, 386 F.3d 536, 544 (3d Cir.2004). Second, even if Huff's statement qualified as testimonial hearsay, we have recently stated that it is far from clear whether the Confrontation Clause even applies at capital sentencing proceedings. United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1099 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Higgs, 353 F.3d 281, 324 (4th Cir.2003)); United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1361 (11th Cir.2006) (declining to decide because statements were non-testimonial); Szabo v. Walls, 313 F.3d 392, 398 (7th Cir.2002) (the Confrontation Clause does not apply to capital sentencing). Given that this is habeas review, we can reverse only based on clearly established law as articulated by the Supreme Court. We deny Mr. Wilson's request for relief on this ground.
Mr. Wilson contends that the testimony of Angela Yost, the victim's wife, and Alma Dorn, the victim's mother, which was offered as victim impact testimony during the sentencing phase of the trial, violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The OCCA denied this claim of error on appeal, Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 466-67, and the district court denied habeas relief on this claim. Wilson III, 2006 WL 2289777, at -40. As is required by 22 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 984.1(C), the victim impact statements in written form were provided to the defendant in advance of sentencing. See also Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880, 894 (Okla.Crim.App.1997). Defense counsel objected to one sentence, which was removed. In court, Ms. Yost read her victim impact statement to the jury toward the end of the state's case in the sentencing phase. She began by describing how her life had changed since Yost's death and how she enjoyed cooking and ironing for her husband. After explaining the effect Yost's death had on herself and her two young sons, she stated Richard was raised in a religion which did not recognize holidays or birthdays, so those times were very special to us. Christmas used to be very special, because Richard got so excited. Here was this 25-year old man who wanted toys for Christmas, because he never got them. Tr. trans. 2/18/97, at 167-68. Following Ms. Yost's testimony, defense counsel asked to approach the bench and objected, as prejudicial, to a member of the Victim Witness Center's presence in the courtroom, as she had been crying. Id. at 168. The court removed the audience member. Counsel did not object to the testimony itself. The state's final witness was Ms. Dorn. She testified, [a]s a child, a young adult, Richard didn't give me any problems. He was maturing into a responsible adult, and an asset to our family and community. He had long-range plans of being better educated. He had gone to TJC for two years. He had gotten his real estate license, just set plans, hopes and dreams of taking care of his family. Id. at 170. She also discussed her son's plans to take care of her in her old age. After Ms. Dorn completed her statement, the following colloquy transpired: Mr. SMALLWOOD: [Mr. Brown's defense attorney] May we make a brief record, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. MR. SMALLWOOD: Judge, comes now Defendant Brown and objects to the victim impact testimony as being far more prejudicial than relevant. THE COURT: Overrule your objection, Mr. Smallwood. You had an opportunity to object to these victim impact statements. The Court eliminated one of the sentences that you didn't like of Ms. Yost's. I'll overrule it and overrule your motion for a mistrial. Id. at 171. Mr. Wilson asserts that this testimony was so highly emotional and unduly prejudicial that it rendered the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). In Payne, the Court overruled portions of its decisions in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987) and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 104 L.Ed.2d 876 (1989), and held that the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar to victim impact evidence. 501 U.S. at 827, 111 S.Ct. 2597. A State may legitimately conclude, as Oklahoma has done, Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.10(C), 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. Id. However, there will be some cases in which victim impact evidence is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597. Because Mr. Wilson's counsel did not object to the victim impact statements, the OCCA correctly reviewed this claim for plain error. It found that: In this case, Wilson complains about statements from the victim's wife stating she enjoyed cooking and ironing for the victim. This evidence is relevant to show the psychological, emotional and physical impact of the victim's death. Wilson complains about the victim's mother's statements that he had just received his real estate license and had plans for the future. The victim's mother also stated that the victim told her that he would take care of her in old age and for her not to worry about the future. These statements were relevant to show the financial and emotional impact of the crime itself on the victim's survivors. Wilson claims that the mother's statement was hearsay. Arguably the statement was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, thus not hearsay. The statement was only offered to show that the victim's mother believed that the victim would take care of her financially in the future. The victim's wife testified that the victim was especially fond of Christmas holidays because he was raised in a family that did not celebrate Christmas. The victim's mother testified that she didn't have any problems with the victim as a child. Statements about a victim's childhood have no relevance in victim impact evidence. We find that these comments amounted to error, but they do not rise to the level of plain error, because they did not go to the foundation of the case, or take from Wilson a right essential to his defense. Wilson I, 983 P.2d at 467 (internal citation omitted). Accepting the OCCA's conclusion that the testimony about the victim's childhood was highly emotional and replete with irrelevant information, we agree that it did not rise to the level of plain error. At the outset, we note that [Mr. Wilson's] assertions of prejudice are undermined by his counsel's delay in challenging [the victim impact] statement[s]. Short v. Sirmons, 472 F.3d 1177, 1193 (10th Cir.2006). Counsel had a version of the statements prior to trial, and yet he failed to challenge their admission until after the statements were presented to the jury. Id. The requirement of timely objection applies with particular force in this context, when the defendant knows the content of the testimony in advance and could prevent any error from taking place; even an objection to the oral testimony would, if well taken, elicit a curative instruction. Additionally, we have found that far more inflammatory statements did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair. For example, in United States v. Chanthadara, 230 F.3d 1237, 1274 (10th Cir.2000), the victim's children ended their testimony in tears, and the husband supplied the jury with numerous color photos of the victim while she was alive. Id. In the jury room, the jury viewed the letters the children had written to their dead mother and one child's daily journal describing his loss. Id. Despite the tremendous emotional effects of the evidence, this Court held that it was not so unduly prejudicial as to render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. Id. at 1273; see also Turrentine, 390 F.3d at 1201 (victim's husband's statement that the murder was brutal, and his request that the jury let justice be done, did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair); Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196, 1223-24 (10th Cir.2003) (lengthy and emotional statement from victim's sister and photographs of the victims while they were alive not unduly prejudicial). The victim impact statements here contained only a few short references to the victim's childhood. Overall, the statements were very brief, and while a person sitting in the courtroom broke down into tears, there is no evidence that either witness exhibited such an emotionally charged display as might be unduly prejudicial. Compare with Chanthadara, 230 F.3d at 1274. We cannot conclude that [t]he irrelevant testimony regarding Mrs. Yost's enjoyment of cooking and ironing for the victim and involving Mr. Yost's childhood could . . . have influenced the jury's finding as to the aggravating factors, Brown, 515 F.3d at 1095, nor could it have prevented the jury from considering the mitigating evidence, see Short, 472 F.3d at 1195. The OCCA's application was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Payne, so we deny habeas relief on this issue.