Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Dunkle v. State, 2006 Okla. Crim. 29, 139 P.3d 228, 2006 Okla. Crim Assignment

Dunkle v. State, 2006 Okla. Crim. 29, 139 P.3d 228, 2006 Okla. Crim. App. Lexis 29 (2006), - Assignment ExampleCharacter evidence was used in the speak to for the purpose of proving action and computer-generated crime scene re-enactments were used to persuade the jury that the states random variable were consistent with evidence at the scene and the defendants was not. Based on this, Dunkle was convicted of first tier murder. Dunkle has now appealed for her sentence and conviction.The issue is whether, by using improper constitution evidence, the appellant was denied of a reasonable trial. It is to be seen if character evidence provided is relevant and admissible in the court of law. Another issue is whether the computer-generated re-enactments argon actual images of the crime or a set of possibilities.Previously, the Court had convicted Dunkle of first degree murder, but the stopping point has now been reversed and the case has been remanded for a new trial. It was found that there were reversible errors in admitting of computer-generated reconstructions and, contrasted and inappropriate character evidence.The previous court had decided that the character evidence showcased and the evidence from computer-generated re-enactments were sufficient to strengthen that Dunkle had committed the crime and hence was convicted of first degree murder. But this court is of the opinion that evidence is deficient to justify the decision. The court came to this conclusion as most of the arguments of the State were directed towards depicting that Dunkle had a bad character and a person who would kill someone but there was no attempt made to establish an apparent motive for the crime. The majority of the character evidence presented was irrelevant to the murder charge. And with respect to computer-generated re-enactments, the evidence still proves that defendants version is not consistent with the evidence at the scene but in no way proves the claim of the state that the

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.