Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma; July 12, 1982; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court
Donald Bowers was convicted of Manslaughter in the First Degree and sentenced to fifty years in prison following the death of Cretia Lynn Perrin. On November 13, 1978, after giving rides to Perrin and another woman, Bowers and Perrin argued at his apartment, leading to an altercation in which he choked her until she lost consciousness and subsequently pushed her down an embankment without checking for signs of life. Bowers confessed to the crime after being taken into custody, having received Miranda warnings twice. His confession was recorded and used as evidence. The defense argued for the suppression of the confession, claiming it was involuntary due to police conduct and Bowers' mental state. However, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, considered the defense's claims, and ultimately found the confession was made voluntarily. The court ruled that the issue of voluntariness was appropriate for jury consideration, confirming that the Miranda warnings were properly administered.
Donald Bowers, a 25-year-old, was interrogated by Detective Baldwin and Detective Lewis regarding the death of Cretia Perrin, with Bowers having been identified as the last person to see her. He acknowledged understanding his Constitutional Rights prior to discussing the incident. The court found that Bowers voluntarily waived his rights, supporting the admissibility of his confession based on precedents such as *Cleveland v. State* and *Moreno v. State*.
Bowers challenged the legality of a search of his apartment, claiming he was incapable of giving voluntary consent. However, evidence indicated that he had coherent conversations with officers and effectively identified locations of potential evidence when he signed the consent form. The court referenced *Coon v. State*, affirming that substantial weight is given to trial court findings when supported by competent evidence.
Bowers also contended that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence, arguing for a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity based on expert testimony from Dr. Gordon Bates. The court clarified that the jury is not bound to accept expert opinions as conclusive regarding mental capacity, and the determination of insanity is a factual question for the jury. The court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and upheld the denial of Bowers' Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
The appellant argues that a fifty-year prison sentence is excessive and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 9 of the Oklahoma Constitution. He claims that his mental state was impaired during the offense and that the prosecutor's closing argument was prejudicial. The court finds that the jury was made aware of the appellant's mental state and that the prosecutor's argument lacks specific cited errors, only general allegations. The court reaffirms that as long as the sentence falls within legal limits, it will not be overturned unless it shocks the judicial conscience. The legal range for First Degree Manslaughter in Oklahoma allows for a minimum of four years; the appellant's sentence is within this range. Additionally, the appellant's claim of cumulative errors during the trial is unsupported by legal authority or argument, and the court emphasizes that mere assertions without substantiation do not warrant a reversal. Consequently, the judgment and sentence are affirmed. Judges Bussey and Cornish concur.
