Ward v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Ward v. State

1988 OK CR 104, 755 P.2d 123, 1988 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107, 1988 WL 51820

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 20, 1988

DocketF-85-804

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1988 OK CR 104 (Ward v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ward v. State, 1988 OK CR 104, 755 P.2d 123, 1988 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107, 1988 WL 51820 (Okla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Thomas Jesse Ward was convicted in Pontotoc County District Court of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Kidnapping, and Murder in the First Degree. He received sentences of twenty (20) years’ imprisonment, ten (10) years’ imprisonment, and the death penalty, respectively. Also tried and convicted was codefendant, Karl Fontenot. Fontenot v. State, 742 P.2d 31 (Okl.Cr.1987). As with Fontenot’s convictions, we find Ward’s convictions must be reversed and the case remanded for new trial.

At the joint trial of Ward and Fontenot, the pretrial confessions of each which inculpated the other were admitted though neither defendant testified at trial. The trial judge followed the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), which held that it was not error in admitting the confession of a codefendant which incriminates the defendant even though the codefendant did not testify if the defendant’s “interlocking” confession is also admitted. The Supreme Court has since repudiated this rule in Cruz v. New York, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). Because of the violation of the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), this Court reversed codefendant Fontenot’s convictions. Fontenot, supra. Because this same error occurs in appellant’s case, we hold that appellant’s convictions must also be reversed. While the ban on the use of a codefendant’s incriminating statements is not absolute, see Cruz, codefendant Fonte-not’s statement does not fall within an exception.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse appellant’s convictions and remand for new trial.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Thomas Jesse Ward was convicted in Pontotoc County District Court of Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon, Kidnapping, and Murder in the First Degree. He received sentences of twenty (20) years’ imprisonment, ten (10) years’ imprisonment, and the death penalty, respectively. Also tried and convicted was codefendant, Karl Fontenot. Fontenot v. State, 742 P.2d 31 (Okl.Cr.1987). As with Fontenot’s convictions, we find Ward’s convictions must be reversed and the case remanded for new trial.

At the joint trial of Ward and Fontenot, the pretrial confessions of each which inculpated the other were admitted though neither defendant testified at trial. The trial judge followed the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Parker v. Randolph, 442 U.S. 62, 99 S.Ct. 2132, 60 L.Ed.2d 713 (1979), which held that it was not error in admitting the confession of a codefendant which incriminates the defendant even though the codefendant did not testify if the defendant’s “interlocking” confession is also admitted. The Supreme Court has since repudiated this rule in Cruz v. New York, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1714, 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987). Because of the violation of the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), this Court reversed codefendant Fontenot’s convictions. Fontenot, supra. Because this same error occurs in appellant’s case, we hold that appellant’s convictions must also be reversed. While the ban on the use of a codefendant’s incriminating statements is not absolute, see Cruz, codefendant Fonte-not’s statement does not fall within an exception.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse appellant’s convictions and remand for new trial.

BRETT, P.J., and PARKS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1988 OK CR 104, 755 P.2d 123, 1988 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 107, 1988 WL 51820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-oklacrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack