Williams v. State, F-80-705
| Decision Date | 08 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. F-80-705,F-80-705 |
| Parties | Jerry WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
The appellant, Jerry Williams, was convicted of Rape in the First Degree in Johnson County District Court. He received a sentence of life imprisonment.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether improper arguments by the prosecuting attorney denied Williams a fair and impartial trial. We find that due to the numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct the appellant must be afforded a new trial.
First, during the voir dire examination the prosecutor attempted to define "reasonable doubt" to the jury. The prosecutor argued:
"...
This Court has previously held that it is error for the trial court or the prosecution to attempt to define reasonable doubt to the jury. Jones v. State, 554 P.2d 830 (Okl.Cr.1976); Lorenz v. State, 406 P.2d 278 (Okl.Cr.1965); Gresham v. State, 396 P.2d 374 (Okl.Cr.1964). Further, the prosecution should refrain from any attempt to define the law to the jury. Instructing the jury on the applicable law is solely the duty of the trial court. Frazier v. State, 607 P.2d 709 (Okl.Cr.1980).
Second, the prosecutor volunterred his opinion as to the veracity of William's testimony. The prosecutor in his statement, "I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that man [Williams] lied, that's just all there is down to it...", unmistakably referred to the appellant as a liar. This comment was improper and wholly unprofessional. Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368 (Okl.Cr.1981).
Third, the prosecution informed the jury that several elements of the crime were uncontested and established facts. The prosecution argued, "the act of sexual intercourse, forcibly ... has never been contested in this courtroom, that is an established fact, that intercourse was accomplished, penetration was accomplished, it was accomplished by force." Though the State's evidence may have been uncontroverted in regard to these elements, they were certainly not "established facts," but instead were questions of fact to be determined by the jury based upon all the evidence presented at trial. The implication by the prosecutor that the jury was not required to determine whether there was forcible intercourse was clearly improper. The State's attorney "has no right in the area of argument to supply the lack of evidence or make greater the weight of the evidence." Gossett v. State, 373 P.2d 285, 290 (Okl.Cr.1962).
Fourth, in closing argument the prosecutor also argued that Williams was no longer presumed innocent. Prosecutor Worthen stated:
... Counsel said something about the defendant being presumed innocent. We all started out with that this morning, I think, probably I'm probably the first person to mention that the defendant in this case is presumed to be innocent, just like every defendant in the State of Oklahoma. I think every one of us agree to that, and that was true this morning, ladies and gentlemen, but that presumption of innocence, ladies and gentlemen, just like the veil in the temple, that presumption of innocence will leak, and it's not there any more.
This line of argument constituted error. Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1981).
Fi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Gibson, 96-6336
...State, 760 P.2d 200, 203 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (same); West v. State, 764 P.2d 528, 529 (Okla.Crim.App.1988) (same); Williams v. State, 658 P.2d 499, 500 (Okla.Crim.App.1983) (same). We have previously noted that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' application of procedural bar in post-c......
-
Paxton v. State
...error should not cause reversal unless their cumulative effect was such as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. See Williams v. State, 658 P.2d 499 (Okl.Cr.1983). A review of the alleged instances of misconduct in the present case shows that Appellant was not denied a fair Only the fir......
-
Smallwood v. State
...It is well established that it is improper to call a witness or defendant a "liar" or to say that he or she is "lying." Williams v. State, 658 P.2d 499 (Okl.Cr.1983); Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368, 369 (Okl.Cr.1981). Nevertheless, it is permissible to comment on the veracity of a witness whe......
-
Ake v. Oklahoma
...523 P.2d 1134, 1137 (Okla.Crim.App.1974) (violation of constitutional right constitutes fundamental error); see also Williams v. State, 658 P.2d 499 (Okla.Crim.App.1983). Thus, the State has made application of the procedural bar depend on an antecedent ruling on federal law, that is, on th......