Dunkle v. State, 2006 Okla. Crim. 29, 139 P.3d 228, 2006 Okla. Crim. App. Lexis 29 (2006), - Assignment Example

Dunkle v. Dunkle v. 2006 Okla. Crim. 29, 139 P.3d 228, 2006 Okla. Crim. App. Lexis 29 (2006) Facts: The appellant Laura Dunkle was charged with first degree murder and sentenced to life term imprisonment without the possibility of parole in Oklahoma state court in 2004. Laura Dunkle’s fiancé at the time Gary Benton White was found dead by a gunshot to chest in front of Dunkle’s home. Dunkle had given numerous statements, which were not consistent, to the Corporal from the Sheriff’s office at the scene and then to O.S.B.

I special agent. Due to this she was suspected, then arrested and produced to the court. It was argued by the state prosecutors that Dunkle’s statements were not in accordance with the evidence at the scene and she had intentionally killed the victim. Character evidence was used in the court for the purpose of proving action and computer-generated crime scene re-enactments were used to persuade the jury that the state’s version were consistent with evidence at the scene and the defendant’s was not.

Based on this, Dunkle was convicted of first degree murder. Dunkle has now appealed for her sentence and conviction.Issue: The issue is whether, by using improper character evidence, the appellant was denied of a fair trial. It is to be seen if character evidence provided is relevant and admissible in the court of law. Another issue is whether the computer-generated re-enactments are actual images of the crime or a set of possibilities.Decision of the Court:Previously, the Court had convicted Dunkle of first degree murder, but the decision has now been reversed and the case has been remanded for a new trial.

It was found that there were reversible errors in admitting of computer-generated reconstructions and, irrelevant and inappropriate character evidence. Reasoning of the Court:The previous court had decided that the character evidence showcased and the evidence from computer-generated re-enactments were sufficient to prove that Dunkle had committed the crime and hence was convicted of first degree murder. But this court is of the opinion that evidence is insufficient to justify the decision. The court came to this conclusion as most of the arguments of the State were directed towards establishing that Dunkle had a bad character and a person who would kill someone but there was no attempt made to establish an apparent motive for the crime.

The majority of the character evidence presented was irrelevant to the murder charge. And with respect to computer-generated re-enactments, the evidence only proves that defendant’s version is not consistent with the evidence at the scene but in no way proves the claim of the state that the defendant killed the victim. There is no solid data to back the state’s version. Therefore, as the argument of the state does not go with legal reasoning, the court had decided to reverse the decision.

Citations to support judgment:Wilkett v. State, 1984 OK CR 16, PP10-12, 674 P.2d 573, 576Burks v. State, 1979 OK CR 10, P2, 594 P.2d 771, 772Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, 13 P.3d 489Rule of Law:Character evidence can be used to convict a defendant only if it can directly prove that the defendant is guilty of charged offense. If not it is admissible for other purposes such as intent, opportunity, motive, etc but cannot be used to convict.Dissent:Lumpkin, Vice-Presiding Judge, felt that the Appellant was denied a fair trial by showcasing of improper character evidence.

They felt that character evidence was not admissible as it did not fall under any of the established exceptions. The defendant’s connection with witchcraft was over emphasised by the prosecution which distracted the jury’s attention from facts and laws upon which the case should have been decided.