Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Oklahoma Department of Corrections inmate Sonny Lauren Harmon brought an action against three employees of the John Lilley Correctional Center, Paul Cradduck, Warden Glynn Booher, and Alice Turner, following the seizure and alleged conversion of a gold wedding ring. The District Court of Oklahoma County entered summary judgment on behalf of each defendant. Harmon appealed the decision. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether summary judgment was supported by the record. After reviewing the record, the Court found that the settled-law-of-the-case-doctrine precluded reconsideration of Harmon's compliance with administrative exhaustion requirements, and it was error to hold otherwise. In addition, the existence of a factual dispute mandated the Court's reversal of summary judgment in favor of defendant Paul Cradduck on Harmon's conversion claim. However, the Court concluded the district court properly awarded summary judgment to each of the defendants for any claim brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Further, any claims based on the purported tortious conduct of Booher and Turner were properly disposed of by the trial judge and COCA.

The State pursuant to Grand Jury Proceedings in Pawnee County, accused Appellant Roger Lee Price, the elected Sheriff of Pawnee County, of wilful neglect of duty and sought his removal from office. A jury trial was held and the jury unanimously determined that Price was guilty of two accusations of wilful neglect of duty. Pursuant to the jury verdict, the trial judge ordered that the Sheriff be removed from office. Price filed a motion for a new trial which the trial court denied. Price appealed, alleging numerous errors. The Supreme Court retained the appeal, consolidated the issues, and after review, held that: 1) there was no error under the facts presented in allowing the State to prove only two of the three alleged acts of wilful conduct when seeking removal of the sheriff; 2) the trial court properly modified the proposed jury instructions to conform to the evidence presented; and 3) the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a demurrer to the evidence/directed verdict.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the first-impression question of whether a bail bondsman's failure to timely pay the order and judgment of forfeiture within ninety-one (91) days after receipt of notice prevents the bondsman from seeking remitter of forfeiture proceeds after returning Defendant to custody pursuant to section 1332(D)(2). Here, the bondsman paid the judgment of forfeiture on the ninety-second day after receipt of notice of forfeiture. The trial judge conducted a hearing at which she granted the bondsman's motion for remitter, ordered return of the money deposited and vacated the order and judgment of forfeiture. The State appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative: the deposit of the face amount of the bond by the ninety-first day after notice of forfeiture, as required by 59 O.S. Supp. 2008 sec. 1332(D)(1) is a condition precedent to seeking the relief of remitter provided by section 1332 (D)(2).