Opinion ID: 155680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: e vidence of the v ictim ’ s d rug c harge

Text: In his fifth claim, Mr. Duvall asserts that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the trial court refused to allow Mr. Duvall to present evidence that Karla had pled guilty to a felony drug charge. At trial, the jury heard an audiotape of Mr. Duvall’s confession to Sheriff Alexander. In his confession, Mr. Duvall stated that he killed his wife after she told him in a telephone conversation that she was resuming her use of illegal drugs. He explained that Karla was angry because he had called her doctor to cancel her prescription. Mr. Duvall stated that his wife told him that she had secured an alternate supply of the drug despite his efforts to prevent her from using drugs. The defense sought to cross-examine Sheriff Alexander by introducing evidence that Karla Duvall had pled guilty to a felony drug charge. The trial judge sustained the state’s objection: - 40 - I do want to point out for the Record a synopsis of conversations that occurred in Chambers yesterday following an objection by the State to Mr. Prince’s attempt to elicit from the Sheriff evidence concerning drug usage of the decedent, Karla Duvall. The general objection was made on the basis of character evidence. We went into Chambers and reviewed the Statutes, including Section 2404 of Title 12, and at the end of all the conversations, the Court’s ruling was that Mr. Prince could go into the general reputation and character of the decedent for drug use, but the sticking point was in reference to this charge that had been filed, which was a . . . case that Mrs. Duvall had received a Deferred Imposition of Sentence, and the Court’s ruling was that Mr. Prince could not elicit testimony concerning that, since it was not a conviction. 7 Tr. at 753. As discussed above in Part IV, on habeas review we are not concerned with whether the trial court properly excluded evidence of Karla Duvall’s drug charge under the Oklahoma rules of evidence. Hopkinson, 866 F.2d at 1200. Instead, to be eligible for federal habeas relief, a petitioner must prove that the state trial court’s evidentiary ruling rendered the “trial so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of federal constitutional rights.” Id. at 1197. Our inquiry “hinges on the materiality of the excluded evidence to the defense.” Matthews v. Price, 83 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir. 1996). 7 Under Oklahoma law, after a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the court may defer further proceedings upon specific conditions. Upon completion of the conditions, the defendant is discharged without a court judgment of guilt, and the court orders the guilty plea to be expunged from the record. See, e.g., OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, § 991(c) (West 1986). - 41 - We hold that the trial court’s exclusion of the victim’s drug charge did not render Mr. Duvall’s trial so fundamentally unfair as to warrant habeas relief. As the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Mr. Duvall’s direct appeal, the victim’s death occurred approximately seven hours after the telephone call. Duvall, 825 P.2d at 627-28. Although the evidence may have had some relevance to Mr. Duvall’s theory of provocation, the evidence would nonetheless be ineffectual in light of the other undisputed evidence that Mr. Duvall did not meet the requirements for an instruction on manslaughter or second degree murder, as discussed in Part III. The admission of Karla’s drug charge would not have required the trial judge to instruct the jury on any lesser-included offense. The seven-hour cooling off period and the absence of any other evidence that would tend to support a charge of manslaughter or second degree murder rendered Karla’s drug conviction immaterial to any issue in the case. As such, we conclude that the exclusion of Karla Duvall’s drug conviction did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. We therefore conclude that Mr. Duvall is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. VI. J URY I NSTRUCTION ON A GGRAVATING C IRCUMSTANCES B EYOND A R EASONABLE D OUBT In his sixth claim, Mr. Duvall contends that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the district court failed to instruct the - 42 - jury that it had the option to return a life sentence regardless of its finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. 8 Under Oklahoma law, a jury is free to decline to impose the death penalty even if it finds that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. See Burrows v. State, 640 P.2d 533, 544 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). Nonetheless, the Constitution does not demand “that the state must affirmatively structure in a particular way the manner in which juries consider mitigating evidence.” Buchanan v. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757, 761 (1998). Instead, “the state may shape and structure the jury’s consideration of mitigation so long as it does not preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant mitigating evidence. . . . [T]he standard for determining whether jury instructions satisfy these principles [is] ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged 8 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not address the merits of this issue on either direct or habeas review. We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently rejected this argument. See, e.g., Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 385 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Bryson v. State, 876 P.2d 240, 262-63 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Pickens v. State, 850 P.2d 328, 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993); Romano v. State, 847 P.2d 368, 392 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993); Fisher v. State, 845 P.2d 1272, 1277-78 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). We express no opinion on the rationale for these decisions, that to give such an instruction would constitute “jury nullification,” see Walker v. State, 723 P.2d 273, 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986), because we hold that the instruction adequately informed the jury of its discretion to impose the death penalty, including by implication the option to impose life imprisonment even if the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating. - 43 - instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of relevant evidence.’” Id. (quoting Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990)). In accordance with these principles, Instruction No. 6 provided: Should you unanimously find that one or more aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be authorized to consider imposing a sentence of death. If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed, you are prohibited from considering the Death Penalty. In that event, the sentence must be Imprisonment for Life. R. at 174 (emphasis added). We hold that Instruction No. 6 adequately afforded the jury an opportunity to consider mitigating evidence. The trial court did not instruct the jury that they must assess death if they found the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury that they were “authorized to consider imposing a sentence of death” upon the finding of an aggravating circumstance. Because the instruction did not prevent consideration of mitigating circumstances, and because no juror would have understood it to do so, the instruction is constitutionally permissible. See Buchanan, 118 U.S. at 761 (approving instruction stating that when an aggravating circumstance is present beyond a reasonable doubt, “then you may fix the punishment at death.”) (emphasis added). - 44 - Mr. Duvall’s reliance on Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702 (11th Cir. 1987) is misplaced. In Kemp, like this case, the jury instructions stated that the jury “would be authorized to consider” the death penalty upon finding a statutory aggravating circumstance. Id. at 732. Unlike this case, however, the instructions in Kemp then stated that if an aggravating circumstance were found, “the form of your verdict would be . . . death.” Id. The Eleventh Circuit held that the jury instruction was unconstitutional because the inconsistency created by the use of both permissive and mandatory language created an unacceptable risk that an average juror would conclude “that the existence of an aggravating circumstance necessitated a death sentence.” Id. at 733. Unlike the instruction in Kemp, the instruction in this case contains only permissive language, which informs the jury that they were not required to impose the death penalty upon a finding of an aggravating circumstance. Instruction No. 6 does not contain the same inconsistency as the instruction at issue in Kemp, and thus does not suffer from the same constitutional infirmity. See Thomas v. State, 811 P.2d 1337, 1347 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (distinguishing Kemp). We are confident that “the instruction adequately apprised the jury of its option not to recommend the death sentence.” Moore v. Butler, 819 F.2d 517, 521 (5th Cir. 1987) (approving instruction that informed the jury that it “may consider” imposing the death penalty upon finding an aggravating circumstance beyond a - 45 - reasonable doubt). In sum, we hold that “the instructions sufficiently preserved, under the Constitution, the jury’s responsibility and authority to exercise its discretion in the sentencing determination.” Coleman v. Saffle, 869 F.2d 1337, 1394 (10th Cir. 1989). Therefore, Mr. Duvall is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. VII. J URY U NANIMITY ON THE E XISTENCE OF M ITIGATING C IRCUMSTANCES In his seventh claim, Mr. Duvall asserts that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because the jury instructions did not inform the jury that unanimous agreement upon the existence of a mitigating circumstance is not required before each juror can consider such evidence. Relying primarily on McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990), and Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), Mr. Duvall contends that the jury instructions erroneously implied that the jury was required to find a mitigating circumstance unanimously before each juror could consider the mitigating circumstance in determining whether to impose the death penalty. In McKoy and Mills, the Supreme Court held that a unanimity requirement concerning mitigating circumstances resulted in an unconstitutional death sentence. McKoy, 494 U.S. at 944; Mills, 486 U.S. at 375. In both cases, the Court reasoned that allowing a holdout juror to prevent the other jurors from - 46 - considering mitigating evidence violated the principle established in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), i.e., that a sentencer may not be precluded from giving effect to all mitigating evidence. McKoy, 494 U.S. at 438; Mills, 486 U.S. at 375. A trial court need not, however, expressly instruct a capital sentencing jury that unanimity is not required before each juror can consider a particular mitigating circumstance. See Buchanan v. Angelone, 118 S.Ct. 757, 761 (1998) (“[T]he State may shape and structure the jury's consideration of mitigation so long as it does not preclude the jury from giving effect to any relevant mitigating evidence.”). Instead, as noted above, our standard for determining whether jury instructions violate the constitution is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 (1990), quoted in Buchanan, 118 S.Ct. at 761; accord Davis v. Executive Dir. of Dept. of Corrections, 100 F.3d 750, 775 (1990) (10th Cir. 1996). 9 9 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not address the merits of this issue on either direct or habeas review. Nevertheless, the Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently held that similar jury instructions comply with McKoy and Mills. See Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880, 898-99 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997); Knighton v. State, 912 P.2d 878, 896 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 120 (1996); LaFevers v. State, 897 P.2d 292, 309-10 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995); Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288, 1320 (continued...) - 47 - In pertinent part, the trial court in this case gave the following instructions relevant to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances: Instruction No. 6 Should you unanimously find that one or more aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, you would be authorized to consider imposing a sentence of death. If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed, you are prohibited from considering the Death Penalty. In that event, the sentence must be Imprisonment for Life. Instruction No. 7 Mitigating circumstances are those which, in fairness and mercy, may be considered as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability or blame. The determination of what are mitigating circumstances is for you as Jurors to resolve under the facts and circumstances of this case. Instruction No. 8 Evidence has been offered as to the following mitigating circumstances: [list] Whether these circumstances existed, and whether these circumstances are mitigating, must be decided by you. Instruction No. 9 If you unanimously find that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you also unanimously find that any such aggravating circumstance or circumstances outweigh the finding of one or more mitigating circumstances, the Death Penalty shall not be imposed. 9 (...continued) (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Harjo v. State, 882 P.2d 1067, 1081 (Okla.. Crim. App. 1994); Stiles v. State, 829 P.2d 984, 997 (Okla.. Crim. App. 1992). - 48 - Instruction No. 10 If you unanimously find that one or more of the aggravating circumstances existed beyond a reasonable doubt, the Law requires that you reduce such findings to writing by stating specifically what aggravating circumstances existed, if any. This finding must be made a part of your Verdict. You must indicate this finding by checking the box next to such aggravating circumstances on the appropriate Verdict form furnished you, and such Verdict form must be signed by your Foreman. The Law does not require you to reduce to writing the mitigating circumstances you find, if any. R. at 174-78 (emphasis added). The instructions consistently require unanimity only on the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstances. Instruction Nos. 6 and 10 require the jury to “unanimously find” aggravating circumstances. In contrast, none of the instructions involving mitigating circumstances impose an express or implied unanimity requirement on the jury’s consideration of mitigating evidence. Instruction Nos. 7, 8, and 10 respectively required the jury to “determin[e],” “decide[],” and “find” whether mitigating circumstances existed without any reference to unanimity. Although Instruction No. 9 requires the jury to find unanimously that the aggravating circumstances outweigh any mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty, the unanimity requirement there refers only to the jury’s balancing of aggravating versus mitigating circumstances, and not to the initial determination of whether mitigating circumstances exist in - 49 - the first place. Thus, Instruction No. 9 is consistent with the instructions describing the proper evaluation of mitigating evidence. We hold that there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury applied these instructions in a way that required them to agree unanimously upon the existence of a mitigating circumstance before considering it. Thus, Mr. Duvall is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground. VIII. “H EINOUS , A TROCIOUS , OR C RUEL ” A GGRAVATING C IRCUMSTANCE Mr. Duvall next challenges the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He asserts that Instruction No. 5, which defines the aggravating circumstance, is unconstitutionally vague as applied. Instruction No. 5 provides: As used in these Instructions, the term “heinous” means extremely wicked or shockingly evil; “atrocious” means outrageously wicked and vile; “cruel” means pitiless, or designed to inflict a high degree of pain, utter indifference to, or enjoyment of, the suffering of others. The 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. R. at 173. A statutory aggravating factor is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to furnish principled guidance for the choice between death and a lesser penalty. See, e.g., Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 427-33 (1980) (invalidating an - 50 - “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman” aggravating circumstance). Based on this principle, in Cartwright v. Maynard, 822 F.2d 1477, 1478-79 (10th Cir. 1987) (en banc), we held that an “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was unconstitutional because it failed to channel the jury’s discretion as required by the Eighth Amendment. Affirming our decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that without precise explanatory language to guide the sentencing decision, “an ordinary person could honestly believe that every unjustified, intentional taking of human life is ‘especially heinous.’” Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 364 (1988). In Cartwright, the Supreme Court noted that Oklahoma could have cured the unconstitutionally vague aggravator by adopting a narrowing construction. Id. at 364-65. In particular, the Court suggested that if the Oklahoma courts had construed the aggravating circumstance to require “torture or serious physical abuse,” such a construction “would be constitutionally acceptable.” Id.; see also Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 654-55 (1990). In response to the Cartwright decision, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals adopted a limiting construction of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator, mandating that the murder involve “torture of the victim or serious physical abuse.” See Stouffer v. State, 742 P.2d 562, 563 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). In Hatch v. State, 58 F.3d 1447, 1468-69 (10th Cir. 1995), we agreed - 51 - that such a narrowing interpretation of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator was constitutionally permissible. Despite our holding in Hatch, Mr. Duvall argues that the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator is unconstitutionally vague. He asserts that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has applied this factor with “remarkable inconsistency.” Appellant’s Br. at 37. Thus, he contends that as applied, the aggravating circumstance does not “‘genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty.’” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 244 (1988) (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877 (1983)). We disagree with Mr. Duvall’s characterization of the case law from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In our view, the court has consistently interpreted the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator to require “torture” and “serious physical abuse” as evidenced by proof of conscious physical suffering. See Stafford v. State, 832 P.2d 20, 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992) (“Absent evidence of conscious physical suffering of the victim prior to death, the required torture or serious physical abuse standard is not met.” (quoting Battenfield v. State, 816 P.2d 555 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. - 52 - 943 (1992))). In addition, that court has applied its standard consistently in evaluating whether or not the evidence justifies a finding of this aggravator. 10 We conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Karla Duvall suffered torture or serious physical abuse as interpreted by the Oklahoma courts. The record indicates that Karla was initially hit on the head with an ashtray. Tr. at 616. The state’s medical examiner, Dr. Jordan, testified that Karla suffered “scattered bruises, generally relatively small, . . . a few very superficial puncture wounds,” and “twenty-five definitive stab wounds, involving head, chest, abdomen and back.” Tr. at 520. Dr. Jordan estimated that Karla 10 In addressing this issue, we have reviewed cases in which the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the application of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravator. See Mollett v. State, 939 P.2d 1, 13-14 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997); Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880, 896 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997); Smith v. State, 932 P.2d 521, 535-36 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 2522 (1997); Charm v. State, 924 P.2d 754, 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1560 (1997); Johnson v. State, 928 P.2d 309, 313, 321 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 1997 WL 291877 (U.S. Oct. 6, 1997) (No. 96-9106); Hain v. State, 919 P.2d 1130, 1146-47 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 588 (1996); Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537, 555 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Long v. State, 883 P.2d 167, 175 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Revilla v. State, 877 P.2d 1143, 1154-55 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994); Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1146-47 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993); Boltz v. State, 806 P.2d 1117, 1125 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991); Nuckols v. State, 805 P.2d 672, 675-76 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991); Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359, 369 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988); Hale v. State, 750 P.2d 130, 143 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). We also have reviewed cases in which the court reversed the jury’s finding of the aggravator. See Cudjo v. State, 925 P.2d 895, 901-02 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996); cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 981 (1997); Battenfield v. State, 816 P.2d 555, 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991); Moore v. State, 809 P.2d 63, 65 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991); Nguyen v. State, 769 P.2d 167, 174 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988); Brown v. State, 753 P.2d 908, 913 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988); Stouffer v. State, 742 P.2d 562, 563-64 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). - 53 - “died . . . within five or ten minutes after receiving these wounds.” Tr. at 535. Dr. Jordan also testified that the victim’s “wounds would have been painful.” Tr. at 536. He concluded that “[t]here [was] no head injury, including the stab wounds that would necessitate her being unconscious, or that would say yes, this lady was unconscious before these wounds [were inflicted].” Tr. at 571. In addition, during Mr. Duvall’s confession on September 18, 1986, he admitted that his wife “never was unconscious.” State’s Ex. 24. Mr. Duvall told law enforcement officers that after he stabbed her, Karla asked for help. Id. Mr. Duvall responded, “[W]ell Karla, it’s just too late for that.” Id. He then took a pillow and suffocated her. Id. In sum, we hold that the record sufficiently supports the jury’s finding of serious physical abuse or torture under the “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravator. The aggravator is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied. We therefore conclude that Mr. Duvall is not entitled to habeas relief on this ground.