Thomason v. State

Summary

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Errol Melvin Thomason’s conviction for attempting to obtain a controlled dangerous substance by altered prescription after former conviction of a felony. The court rejected claims concerning the prosecutor’s voir dire comments about reasonable doubt, cross-examination regarding prior convictions and conduct, and alleged societal-alarm arguments during punishment-phase closing argument. The court held that any issues were waived, invited, nonprejudicial, or did not constitute fundamental error.

Holdings

1. Although it is error for a prosecutor to attempt to define beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor's comments did not define the phrase or leave an erroneous impression, and they did not cause prejudice or constitute fundamental error.
2. When a criminal defendant places his character in issue on direct examination, the prosecution may inquire on cross-examination into relevant specific instances of conduct.
3. The prosecutor's challenged punishment-phase remarks were reasonable inferences and comments on the evidence and did not constitute fundamental error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor committed reversible or fundamental error by referring during voir dire to the difference between reasonable doubt and all doubt.
2. Whether the prosecutor improperly inquired during cross-examination into the factual basis of Thomason's prior convictions, other crimes, and deferred sentences.
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly raised societal alarm during closing argument in the punishment phase.

Disposition

affirmed