harmless error in Oklahoma

2024FOOTNOTES 1 A "stale" conviction is defined in Section 2609(B) as one in which "a period of more than ten (10) years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is later." Section 2609(B) does not apply in criminal sexual offense cases involving a child where the defendant takes the stand and has a prior conviction for a sexual offense involving a child. 2 Gourley and Rushing both applied the harmless error standard for constitutional errors from Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

2024FOOTNOTES Gourley and Rushing both applied the harmless error standard for constitutional errors from Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 (1967).

2000Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967); Wisdom v. State, 1996 OK CR 22, ¶31 , 918 P.2d 384, 393 ; see also Hain v. State, 1996 OK CR 26, ¶38 , 519 P.2d 1130 , 1141-1142, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1031 , 117 S.Ct. 588 , 136 L.Ed.2d 517 (1996) (an error, albeit constitutional, is subject to a harmless error analysis because it was an error in the trial process itself, and not a defect affecting the entire framework of the trial); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1257 , 118 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (a majority of Justic

2000Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967); Wisdom v. State, 1996 OK CR 22, ¶31 , 918 P.2d 384, 393 ; see also Hain v. State, 1996 OK CR 26, ¶38 , 519 P.2d 1130 , 1141-1142, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1031 , 117 S.Ct. 588 , 136 L.Ed.2d 517 (1996) (an error, albeit constitutional, is subject to a harmless error analysis because it was an error in the trial process itself, and not a defect affecting the entire framework of the trial); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1257 , 118 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (a majority of Justic

2023Our holding today does not address harmless error review of non-constitutional plain error affecting substantial rights. 2 See Simpson v. State , 1994 OK CR 40, ¶¶ 32-37 , 876 P.2d 690, 701-02 (applying the harmless error standard from Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946) to non-constitutional plain error). 3 Nor does today's holding change what is required to prove that an actual or obvious error affected substantial rights, viz. , a showing that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.

2023Our holding today does not address harmless error review of non-constitutional plain error affecting substantial rights. 2 See Simpson v. State , 1994 OK CR 40, ¶¶ 32-37 , 876 P.2d 690, 701-02 (applying the harmless error standard from Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946) to non-constitutional plain error). 3 Nor does today's holding change what is required to prove that an actual or obvious error affected substantial rights, viz. , a showing that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.

2019The harmless error test is "whether it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" Id. at 15, 119 S.Ct. at 1837 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).

2019The harmless error test is "whether it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" Id. at 15 , 119 S.Ct. at 1837 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)).

2021Numerous other courts have reached the same conclusion. 23 Perhaps most importantly, in considering an evidentiary error in violation section 2403, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "[a]dmitting evidence that is more prejudicial than probative is subject to a harmless error analysis." Willis v. State , 2017 OK CR 23 , ¶ 21, 406 P.3d 30, 35 (citing Robinson v. State , 2011 OK CR 15 , ¶ 4, 255 P.3d 425, 428 ).

2021Numerous other courts have reached the same conclusion. 23 Perhaps most importantly, in considering an evidentiary error in violation section 2403, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "[a]dmitting evidence that is more prejudicial than probative is subject to a harmless error analysis." Willis v. State , 2017 OK CR 23 , ¶ 21, 406 P.3d 30, 35 (citing Robinson v. State , 2011 OK CR 15 , ¶ 4, 255 P.3d 425, 428 ).

2013Bartell v. State, 1994 OK CR 59, ¶¶13-14 , 881 P.2d 92 , 97 citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

1996Admission of the videotaped Creek County confession is subject to a harmless error analysis: it is a classic trial error in that it is one “which occurred during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Bartell v. State, 881 P.2d 92, 98 (Okl.Cr.1994) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-08 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1263-64 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991)).

2004Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-687 (1986).

2004Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-687 (1986).

2000Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967); Wisdom v. State, 1996 OK CR 22, ¶31 , 918 P.2d 384, 393 ; see also Hain v. State, 1996 OK CR 26, ¶38 , 519 P.2d 1130 , 1141-1142, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1031 , 117 S.Ct. 588 , 136 L.Ed.2d 517 (1996) (an error, albeit constitutional, is subject to a harmless error analysis because it was an error in the trial process itself, and not a defect affecting the entire framework of the trial); see also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1257 , 118 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (a majority of Justic

1998Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705, 710-11 (1967); Wisdom v. State, 1996 OK CR 22, ¶ 31 , 918 P.2d 384, 393 ; See also Hain v. State, 1996 OK CR 26, ¶ 38 , 919 P.2d 1130, 1141-1142 (an error, albeit constitutional, is subject to a harmless error analysis because it was an error in the trial process itself, and not a defect affecting the entire framework of the trial); See also Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1257 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (a majority of Justices hold that harmless error analysis applies to coerced confessions).

2023Or, as the [Supreme Court] phrased it: The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 230 [ 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2166 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ] (1975), and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.

2023Or, as the [Supreme Court] phrased it: The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence, United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225, 230 [ 95 S. Ct. 2160, 2166 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 ] (1975), and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.

2019See also Barnard v. State , 2012 OK CR 15, ¶ 14, 290 P.3d 759, 764 (where an element of the crime was omitted from the jury instruction this Court reviewed for plain error and applied the harmless error doctrine pursuant to United States Supreme Court's decisions in Chapman and Neder ). ¶8 The evidence presented at trial was that all of the child victims were under the age of twelve at the time Chadwell committed the crimes charged.

2019See also Barnard v. State , 2012 OK CR 15, ¶ 14, 290 P.3d 759, 764 (where an element of the crime was omitted from the jury instruction this Court reviewed for plain error and applied the harmless error doctrine pursuant to United States Supreme Court's decisions in Chapman and Neder ). ¶8 The evidence presented at trial was that all of the child victims were under the age of twelve at the time Chadwell committed the crimes charged.

1997Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986); Scott v. State, 891 P.2d 1283, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1995).

1997Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986); Scott v. State, 891 P.2d 1283, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1995).

1975See also, Robertson v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 132 , 250 P.2d 62 (1952); Selstrom v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 345 , 123 P. 557 (1912); Armstrong v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 567, 103 P. 658 (1903).

1975See also, Robertson v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 132 , 250 P.2d 62 (1952); Selstrom v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 345 , 123 P. 557 (1912); Armstrong v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 567 , 103 P. 658 (1903).

1975See also, Robertson v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 132 , 250 P.2d 62 (1952); Selstrom v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 345 , 123 P. 557 (1912); Armstrong v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 567, 103 P. 658 (1903).

1975See also, Robertson v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 132 , 250 P.2d 62 (1952); Selstrom v. State, 7 Okl.Cr. 345 , 123 P. 557 (1912); Armstrong v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 567 , 103 P. 658 (1903).

2023Our holding today does not address harmless error review of non-constitutional plain error affecting substantial rights. 2 See Simpson v. State , 1994 OK CR 40, ¶¶ 32-37 , 876 P.2d 690, 701-02 (applying the harmless error standard from Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750, 765 (1946) to non-constitutional plain error). 3 Nor does today's holding change what is required to prove that an actual or obvious error affected substantial rights, viz. , a showing that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding.

2021For non-constitutional errors, federal courts "apply the harmless-error analysis of Kotteakos v. United States , 328 U.S. 750 , 66 S. Ct. 1239 , 90 L.

2012Hogan, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38 , 139 P.3d at 923 . { 14 Nevertheless, even though we review for plain error, rather than error, the harmless error doctrine of the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 28-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15-16 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1837 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), still apply to our analysis here.

2012Hogan, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38 , 139 P.3d at 923 . { 14 Nevertheless, even though we review for plain error, rather than error, the harmless error doctrine of the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 28-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) and Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15-16 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1837 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999), still apply to our analysis here.

2004Although I personally have qualms about whether we should ever substitute our judgment for that of a jury, I recognize that this Court has applied a harmless error analysis in this context before, see Cargle, 909 P.2d at 835 , and I really have no doubt that the erroneous victim impact testimony had no bearing on the jury's decision to sentence DeRosa to death for his crimes. 142 .

2004See, e.g., Willingham, 947 P.2d at 1086-87 ; see also Cargle, 909 P.2d at 835 (discussing appropriate role of victim impact evidence within overall capital sentencing scheme). 143 .