|
Cheryl Lynn Bell -vs- State of
Oklahoma
|
|
Appeal Court found prosecutorial
misconduct which resulted in modification of Bell’s sentence.
|
|
Judge Lumpkin suggests matter be referred
to Oklahoma Bar Association
|
|
Grady County Report by Camille
Hunt
|
|
November 29th, 2007 - Cheryl Lynn
Bell was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of First
Degree Misdemeanor Manslaughter in the District Court of Grady
County, Case No. CF-2004-196. In accordance with the
jury’s recommendation, the Honorable Richard G. Van Dyck
sentenced Bell to two sentences of five years total
imprisonment. Judge Van Dyck ordered the sentences to
run consecutively, (one after the other). During the
trial, Bell was represented by Attorneys John Hunsucker and
James Todd.
|
|
Prosecuting the case at trial was Bret Burns, the District Attorney for Grady
County, Oklahoma.
|
|
Bell's Attorney for the appeal was Bobby G.
Lewis of Norman, Oklahoma. He was somewhat successful in his
appeal for Bell.
|
|
Though Bell was not given total relief from the
Jury's sentence, the sentence was amended as a result of Bret
Burns prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|
In the Appeal Court's decision it is written;
"Taken as a whole, the prosecutor’s conduct crossed the
line of acceptable behavior to Bell’s prejudice. This
Court has twice, in published cases, found this prosecutor engaged
in improper argument. This case is another instance in which his
behavior prejudiced Bell and jeopardized her right to a fair
trial. This Court cannot overlook the corrosive effect of
prosecutorial misconduct on this trial. Bell’s sentences
are modified to run concurrently."
|
|
More interesting however, Judge Lumpkin of
the Appeal Court wrote:
|
| Lumpkin, Presiding
Judge: Concur In Part/Dissent In Part
¶1 I concur in the
Court’s decision to affirm the convictions in this case,
however I cannot find a legal basis for modifying the
sentences.
¶2 While I agree the
prosecutor committed error in the scope of some of his
questions and argument, I cannot find it created prejudice
in the verdict by the jury. In this case, the jury
rendered a sentence recommendation just one year more than
the minimum sentence allowed. It is hard to show
prejudice in a 5-year sentence when the minimum sentence
would be 4 years. In other words, whatever errant
actions were committed by the prosecutor had zero impact
on the jury. The decision to run the sentences
consecutive was made by the trial judge and not the jury.
It cannot be remotely argued that the prosecutor’s
comments had an impact on the trial judge.
¶3 Instead of
dealing with the facts of this case, it appears the Court
is simply seeking to punish the prosecutor for past and
present wrongs. I do not believe we should deprive
the citizens of the State of Oklahoma of a valid judgment
and sentence in this case due to mere displeasure with the
actions of the prosecutor when there is no evidence those
actions created prejudice. If an attorney’s
violation of ethical standards is such that discipline is
required, then this Court should refer the matter to the
Oklahoma Bar Association to determine what that discipline
should be. I would affirm both the judgments and
sentences.
|
|
|
Below is a link to the very interesting
opinion handed down from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on
November 15, 2007.
|
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=451106
|
|
Stay informed by joining our mailing list...
Subscribe
|
|
