Smith v. State, D–2010–357.

Decision Date07 August 2013
Docket NumberNo. D–2010–357.,D–2010–357.
Citation306 P.3d 557
PartiesRoderick L. SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

An Appeal from the District Court Of Oklahoma County; The Honorable Jerry D. Bass, District Judge.

Cathy Hammarsten, Shea Smith, Assistant Public Defenders, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for defendant at trial.

Sandra Elliott, Suzanne Lister, Assistant District Attorneys, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for the State at trial.

Marva A. Banks, Assistant Public Defender, Oklahoma City, OK, attorney for appellant on appeal.

E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Robert Whittaker, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, attorneys for the State on appeal.

OPINION

C. JOHNSON, J.

¶ 1 Appellant, Roderick L. Smith, was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF–1993–3968, of five counts of First Degree Murder, 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7(A) He was originally sentenced to death on all five counts. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Smith v. State, 1996 OK CR 50, 932 P.2d 521. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Smith v. Oklahoma, 521 U.S. 1124, 117 S.Ct. 2522, 138 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1997). This Court subsequently denied Appellant's first application for post-conviction relief. Smith v. State, 1998 OK CR 20, 955 P.2d 734. In 2002, while Appellant was seeking habeas corpus relief in the federal courts,1 the United States Supreme Court held that imposition of the death penalty against mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Petitioner then filed a successor application for post-conviction relief in this Court, claiming that under the new rule announced in Atkins, he was ineligible for the death penalty because he was mentally retarded. We remanded the case to the district court for that factual determination. Smith v. State, Case No. PCD–2002–973 (Okl.Cr. Aug. 5, 2003) (not for publication).

¶ 2 In March 2004, an Oklahoma County jury concluded that Appellant was not mentally retarded.2 In August 2004, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Appellant's still-pending habeas action. That Court denied relief on claims relating to Appellant's guilt, but concluded that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing stage of his original trial, and remanded for a new capital sentencing proceeding. Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir.2004). This Court subsequently reviewed the proceedings from Appellant's 2004 mental-retardation trial, and affirmed the jury's verdict. Smith v. State, Case No. O–2006–683 (Order issued Jan. 29, 2007; not for publication).

¶ 3 Once the issue of Appellant's eligibility for the death penalty after Atkins v. Virginia was resolved, his capital resentencing trial proceeded. First, Appellant challenged his competency to be re-sentenced. At a trial held in November 2009, before the Honorable Jerry D. Bass, District Judge, a six-member jury unanimously concluded that Appellant was competent. The capital re-sentencing trial, also before Judge Bass, began in earnest in February 2010. That jury found three aggravating circumstances supporting the death penalty as to all five murders: (1) that Appellant had previously been convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; (2) that Appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person; and (3) that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. As to two of the counts (Counts 2 and 5), the jury also found the existence of a fourth aggravating circumstance—that the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing lawful arrest or prosecution. The jury recommended sentences of life without parole for the first three counts, but a sentence of death on the latter two. On April 14, 2010, the district court imposed sentence in accordance with the jury's recommendation.3 The instant appeal embraces both the February 2010 finding that Appellant was competent to be re-sentenced, and the subsequent re-sentencing trial.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

¶ 4 Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife, Jennifer Smith, and her four children from a prior relationship—ten-year-old Shameka Carter, nine-year-old Glen Carter Jr., seven-year-old Ladarian Carter, and six-year-old Kenisha Carter—at the family's Oklahoma City home in June 1993. Four of the bodies were hidden in closets; one child's body was found under a bed. The state of decomposition suggested the victims had been dead for at least several days. The day the bodies were discovered, Appellant voluntarily presented himself at the police station, and was arrested after confessing to the crimes. Appellant's descriptions of where he had hidden each body were consistent with what the police discovered.

¶ 5 Autopsies showed that Jennifer Smith suffered multiple stab wounds, one in particular which could have proven fatal. One child, Ladarian, exhibited several serious stab wounds which could have caused his death. Appellant's two step-daughters showed no signs of trauma, suggesting that they may have been asphyxiated. The body of the fourth child, Glen Jr., was too badly decomposed to determine the cause of his death.

¶ 6 In its quest for the death penalty, the State presented evidence supporting five aggravating circumstances. First, the fact that Appellant had created a great risk of death to more than one person was not contested. Second, Appellant had previously been convicted of a violent felony—specifically, for repeatedly stabbing a former girlfriend in 1986. Third, the prior stabbing, coupled with Appellant's attack on a prison guard and the circumstances surrounding the murders in this case, were used to support the State's claim that Appellant constituted a continuing threat to society. Fourth, the State argued that all of the victims in this case suffered such that the murders were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Finally, the State contended that all of the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding arrest or prosecution. The State also presented victim-impact testimony from Jennifer Smith's mother, the biological father of her murdered children, and other relatives.

¶ 7 Appellant's case in mitigation focused primarily on his intellectual deficits. He presented evidence that as a young child, he had almost drowned, and that subsequent brain scans indicated organic brain damage. He presented a substantial amount of lay and expert testimony to show that he suffered from cognitive deficits, and to suggest that he was mentally retarded. Relatives described Appellant as quiet and slow; he attended special-education classes in grade school. Various witnesses, particularly those who had encountered him since the murders, doubted his ability to read, write, or understand the nature of the charges against him. A considerable amount of testimony was offered showing Appellant scored very low on numerous I.Q. tests and similar assessments.

¶ 8 The State presented its own lay and expert testimony showing that, even if Appellant was of sub-normal intelligence, he was able to function quite normally when he wanted to. For example, when he first met with police, Appellant appeared unable to comprehend his circumstances or give even the most basic information. Eventually, however, Appellant's demeanor changed, and he conversed with detectives more freely, describing the events surrounding the murders in what would appear to be a relatively normal (if emotional) manner. 4 The State also pointed out that Appellant was able to make excuses for his actions (claiming, e.g., that his wife had tried to poison him), and that at one point he fabricated a story that the murders had been committed by a fictitious federal drug-enforcement agent, who was allegedly having an affair with Appellant's wife. The State also presented evidence that Appellant had held jobs as a cashier and janitor, and that any intellectual deficits he might have had were not apparent to his employers. Nor were they apparent to the women he had affairs with, including the one he stabbed in 1986.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9 Appellant's guilt in the murders of his wife and four step-children is not at issue here. Both this Court and the federal courts have already considered and rejected claims bearing on the issue of guilt. The focus of Appellant's resentencing trial was on the appropriate punishment for these crimes. Nevertheless, specific facts about the murders were relevant to the sentencing decision, e.g., whether the murders were “especiallyheinous, atrocious, or cruel.” These details are discussed below as they become relevant.

¶ 10 On the other hand, Appellant's intellectual functioning has been a recurring issue, in some form or another, throughout the long history of this case. Lay and expert testimony about Appellant's mental functioning has been advanced (1) as relevant to his eligibility for the death penalty after Atkins v. Virginia; (2) as relevant to his competency to stand trial (or to be re-sentenced); and (3) as mitigating evidence, to show that he is deserving of a sentence less than death. The first purpose—whether Appellant is mentally retarded—has been fully litigated and finally adjudicated in prior proceedings. The second and third purposes are properly before the Court in this resentencing appeal.

¶ 11 The jury at Appellant's competency trial, and the jury at his capital re-sentencing trial, heard substantially the same evidence about Appellant's intellectual abilities for technically different purposes. That body of evidence includes observations and opinions about Appellant, not only throughout the 20–year history of this prosecution, but further back to his childhood. Both juries heard testimony from family members, grade-school officials, special-education...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Bosse v. State, D–2012–1128
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 25 Mayo 2017
    ...to commit the predicate crime, but to eliminate a witness to that crime by killing the victim. Smith v. State , 2013 OK CR 14, ¶ 59, 306 P.3d 557, 576 ; Lott , 2004 OK CR 27, ¶ 117, 98 P.3d at 348. The defendant's intent, which may be proved by circumstantial evidence, is crucial to proof o......
  • Winbush v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 29 Noviembre 2018
  • Smith v. Sharp
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 26 Agosto 2019
    ...resentencing and competency determinations, and the effectiveness of counsel in those proceedings. The OCCA affirmed. Smith v. State, 306 P.3d 557 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013), cert. denied, 572 U.S. 1137, 134 S. Ct. 2662, 189 L.Ed.2d 213 (2014). Smith applied for but failed to obtain post-convi......
  • Winbush v. State
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 29 Noviembre 2018
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT