Opinion ID: 164247
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence presented and the closing argument

Text: 27 During the trial, the State presented evidence and testimony concerning the blood found at the crime scene. Specifically, the State presented testimony from Detective Sgt. Ed Bradway, the crime scene investigator who processed the crime scene and collected the evidence. Sgt. Harville assisted Det. Bradway and took photographs of the crime scene, and in particular the photographs of the double kitchen doors where most of the blood was found. Mr. Miller notes that the State did not present evidence from a blood spatter expert or a handwriting expert, although both were consulted by the State. 28 At trial, Det. Bradway testified regarding Exhibits 54-57, which are color photos of the double doors and the floor in front of them. Det. Bradway noted what appeared to be high velocity blood spatter on the right door and smears that looked like transfer blood off somebody's hands. See Tr. trans. vol. V, at 63-64. Det. Bradway testified that the right-hand spatter appeared red and unsmeared, and postulated that this blood must have been on the door before the transfer blood, in that it had time to dry. Det. Bradway testified that he was unable to obtain prints from any of the smears or wipes. 29 During the final closing argument 1 , the prosecutor showed the jury State Exhibit 55 and told the jury that the most important evidence had almost been overlooked, for they could see the victim went into his own blood ... and wrote his killer's name. Tr. trans. vol. X, at 251. The prosecutor then produced a transparency overlay with the name JAy written on it. He placed the overlay atop Exhibit 55 and matched up the written JAy with the blood smear on the wall. He also concluded that Mr. Dodd did not write the name Jay just once: He wanted to make sure that you saw it, you people.... Folks, he wrote the letter J in the lower left-hand corner of that picture. J, which, of course, []usually stands for the word Jay. Id. at 252. 30 In denying relief on this claim, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals stated: 31 Contrary to Miller's argument, State's Exhibit No. 55 is not evidence. It was not introduced into evidence and it was not taken into deliberations by the jury. Rather, it demonstrated a reasonable inference from evidence properly disclosed to the defense and properly admitted at trial. In this regard the transparency is akin to counsel writing with chalk on a blackboard. Counsel for both the defense and State are granted wide latitude to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Miller, 977 P.2d at 1110. 2 32 Mr. Miller argues that he was unduly prejudiced because the prosecutor knew before trial that he intended to suggest that Mr. Dodd was identifying his killer in the blood smear during final closing. The presentation of this undisclosed bombshell theory at the final closing left no opportunity for rebuttal or cross-examination. Aplt's Br. at 21. 33 The State does not deny that it planned this strategy of attack. In his opening, the prosecutor told the jury that Mr. Dodd certainly wanted to live as the evidence from the scene would indicate, and he wanted Jay captured as you will see. Tr. trans. vol. IV, at 90. In his first closing argument, the prosecution continued building up this yet undisclosed theory, telling the jury that Mr. Miller left the only witness bleeding out on the ground, the witness who in fact did know who killed him, that Jay had killed him. And I will tell you exactly how the evidence demonstrates that in the second closing. Tr. trans. vol. X, at 159. The State argues it was under no duty to disclose its theory of the case, which involved only inculpatory materials, asserting that [t]he State is not required to inform the defense as to what significance the State assigns to each exhibit. Aple's Br. at 17. 34