Court Opinion

ID: 9791607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:14:27.476583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.203397
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING
Petitioner, the State of OMahoma, is before the Court urging reconsideration of the decision to reverse and remand the conviction herein on the ground the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the State’s shifting burden of proof once the defendant successfully raised self-defense. The State argues the Court improperly based it’s decision on Perez v. State, 798 P.2d 639 (Okl.Cr. 1990) which was, by its own language, limited to prospective application only.
The State misapprehends the holding of the Court, for the opinion states plainly:
Prior to Perez the Court reviewed the jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they adequately set forth the State’s shifting burden. See Hommer v. State, 657 P.2d 172 (Okl.Cr.1983); Cantrell v. State, 562 P.2d 527 (Okl.Cr.1977). As Appellant’s case was tried prior to Perez, we examine the instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was instructed adequately. August 27, 1993 Opinion at p. 1215.
The Court examined the instructions as a whole, and determined no instruction properly guided the jury regarding the State’s shifting burden. Had any instruction so advised the jury, the instructions on this point could have been deemed sufficient on appellate review whether or not the standard jury instruction, OUJI-CR 745, was given. This is a proper application of Perez. The State baldly asserts the instructions as a whole are sufficient, points to no place in the record where the trial court instructed on ‘the State’s shifting burden. This bald assertion is understandable, for nowhere in the record does the trial court so instruct.
The State’s final argument, that the failure to instruct is harmless, “since the facts in this case do not lend themselves to a self defense argument in the first place” is not supported by the record. The trial court correctly found the defense was raised, and he instructed extensively, albeit incompletely, on the issue.
IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the Motion for Rehearing be DENIED.
/s/ Gary L. LumpMn GARY L. LUMPKIN PRESIDING JUDGE concur in result
/s/ Charles A. Johnson CHARLES A. JOHNSON, VICE-PRESIDING JUDGE
*1219/s/ James F. Lane JAMES F. LANE, JUDGE
/&/ Charles Chapel CHARLES CHAPEL, JUDGE
/s/ Reta Strubhar RETA STRUBHAR JUDGE