State of Oklahoma v. Wesley Wayn Williams

Oklahoma City, criminal defense lawyer represented the defendant charged with Murder in the First Degree.

¶1 Wesley Wayne Williams was tried by a jury and convicted of Murder in the First Degree (Counts I and II) in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 701.7(A), in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-93-6031. In Count I, the jury found Williams was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence, knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person, and probably would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, the Honorable Daniel Owens sentenced Williams to death on Count I and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on Count II. Williams has perfected his appeal of this conviction and raises seventeen propositions of error. We are compelled to reverse and remand for a new trial. Consequently we address only Propositions I and II.

* * *

¶7 We begin with the reversible error addressed in Proposition II. Williams claims the trial court violated his privilege against self-incrimination and infringed on his right to the assistance of counsel by ruling that he had to take the stand before presenting evidence of self-defense. Williams stated several times on the record that he did not intend to testify and would only do so because the trial court required him to take the stand in order to present self-defense. In the many rulings made on this issue, the trial court insisted that Williams was not required to take the stand but seemed convinced that, in order for Williams to claim self-defense, someone present at the crime had to testify as to Williams's state of mind. Whether intentional or not, the effect of the ruling was that Williams could not present any evidence of self-defense unless he first took the stand and personally claimed self-defense. The court noted that it could not force Williams to take the stand, but would not admit any foundational evidence of self-defense until Williams took the stand. The court emphasized its belief that it was Williams's choice to take the stand. Thus Williams was not allowed to develop any evidence which would support a theory of self-defense by cross-examining State witnesses. Before Williams opened his case, the trial court explicitly ruled that Williams had to take the stand before he could present any witnesses or evidence on the issue of self-defense. This order encompassed more than just evidence of the victim's reputation, threats or acts of violence against Williams; it included any statements or other evidence which would support a self-defense claim.

¶8 The trial court appears to have based this ruling on a belief that some direct evidence of Williams's state of mind was required. This is not the law of self-defense. This Court has held that a defendant may raise self-defense sufficiently to justify an instruction through circumstantial evidence alone.1 In Cordray the defendant did not testify and the State did not introduce any confession, admission or hearsay statement made by the [915 P.2d 376] defendant regarding the crime.2 Cordray announced a self-defense claim in opening statement, then relied on evidence developed in cross-examination of State witnesses suggesting the decedent had been the aggressor.3 This Court held this circumstantial evidence alone sufficiently raised the issue of self-defense and required a jury instruction.4 If the State may prove a defendant's state of mind through circumstantial evidence, then common sense dictates that a defendant may attempt to prove his state of mind through circumstantial evidence as well.5 Here, Williams claimed self-defense in his opening statement but was denied even the opportunity to attempt to present a circumstantial case. Of course, as we discuss below, had all the evidence been properly admitted Williams would have been able to elicit or present both circumstantial and direct evidence (Roe's testimony that he claimed it was "them or me") regarding his state of mind without testifying himself.

¶9 Self-defense is an affirmative defense which must be raised by the defendant unless evidence in the State's case shows the homicide was justifiable.6 Oklahoma law does not require a defendant to take the stand in order to claim self-defense.7 This Court has recognized a defendant's ability to raise self-defense through cross-examination of State witnesses.8 Williams was unable to conduct any questioning which would have elicited testimony raising the issue of self-defense in the State's case.

¶26 As a result of the errors identified in the guilt/innocence stage of the trial this case is REVERSED and REMANDED for NEW TRIAL.