Closing Presentation (State v. Carroll)

JURY INSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS JURORS

To determine the facts from the evidence;
To follow the law as stated in the instructions from the judge; and,
To reach a verdict based upon the evidence and to determine punishment if you find
the Defendant guilty.

WHAT ARE JURY INSTRUCTIONS?

The jury instructions are the legal rules that you must apply in this case and by which
you are to weigh the evidence and determine the facts in issue in deciding this case and
in reaching a verdict.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE?
Testimony received from the witnesses under oath;
Stipulations made by the attorneys; and,
Exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial.

WHAT MUST THE STATE PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

Each element of the crime with evidence

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL
MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ELEMENTS

1
The death of a human
Occurring as a direct result of an act or event which happened in the

commission of a misdemeanor
Caused by the Defendant while in the commission of a misdemeanor
The elements of the DUI (underlying misdemeanor) are as follows:
4.1
Driving
4.2
With a BAC of .08% or more
4.3
A Vessel
4.4
On a public waterway
4.5
The blood-alcohol test was administered on a sample taken from the

Defendant as soon as practical after the fatality / injury accident.
DEATH OF A HUMAN
MANSLAUGHTER ELEMENTS
Medical Examiners
Testimony and Report
detailing the death of
Monte Price, a human.
Monte Prices dead

body located and
pulled from the water
about twelve hours
after going in.
Photographs of Monte
Prices dead body in
evidence.
Proof beyond a
reasonable doubt of
death of a human.
STATES EXHIBIT 83
OCCURING AS A DIRECT RESULT OF EVENT THAT HAPPENING IN MISDEMEANOR
DEFINITIONS
DIRECT RESULT
Immediate consequence which is not separated from its initial cause by other,
independent factors.
IN THE COMMISSION OF A MISDEMEANOR
Performing any act which is an inseparable part of a crime or necessary for its
completion, or fleeing from the immediate scene of the offense.

THE ACT OR EVENT

The wreck that ejected Monte Price from the boat, causing him to die.

THE MISDEMEANOR BEING COMMITTED
DUI. Defendant was driving when he throttled and wrecked it into breakwater. Defendant
performed an inseparable part of the crime of DUI at the time of the wreck: he was
driving at the time of the wreck.

DIRECT RESULT
Monte Prices death was a direct result of the wreck caused while Defendant was in the
commission of the misdemeanor crime of DUI at the exact time of the wreck.

CAUSED BY DEFENDANT WHILE COMMITTING A MISDEMEANOR
DEFENDANT DECIDES TO DRINK ALCOHOL FROM THE

EVENING OF 07/28 AND THROUGH MORNING HOURS OF
07/29.
DEFENDANT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL; LEGALLY

INTOXICATED (.09%) AT THE TIME OF DRIVING THE BOAT.
DEFENDANT PERFORMS THE ACT OF DRIVING THE BOAT;

THUS COMMITTING MISDEMEANOR DUI AS HE DRIVES.
WRECK OCCURS WHILE DEFENDANT DRIVING AND

COMMITTING DUI; EVENT CAUSES MONTE PRICE TO BE
EJECTED AND DIE.
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT MONTE PRICES
DEATH OCCURRED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE WRECK THAT
HAPPENED CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS COMMISSION OF A
MISDEMEANOR DUI.
THE UNDERLYING ELEMENTS
A SINGLE ELEMENT WITH SUBELEMENTS, ALL OF WHICH MUST BE PROVEN

The State must prove each of the five (5) elements of misdemeanor DUI beyond a
reasonable doubt in order to satisfy Element No. 4 for Manslaughter in the First Degree.
The elements are:
4.1
Driving
4.2
While under the influence of alcohol
4.3
A Vessel
4.4
On a public waterway
4.5
The blood-alcohol test was administered on a sample taken from the

Defendant as soon as practical after the fatality / injury accident.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING MISDEMEANOR
WHO WAS DRIVING THE BOAT?

Brian Smiths testimony was that he

was 100% sure Defendant driving
the boat at the time of wreck.
Defendant: I was not driving the

boat at the time of the accident.
THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING MISDEMEANOR
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS WITH REGARD TO PROVING THE DEFENDANT WAS

DRIVING THE BOAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT:

CREDIBILITY
You determine the credibility of each witness and the weight to be given to their. In
determining weight or credibility, you may properly consider the witness:

Interest in the result of the trial

Relation to the parties
Bias or prejudice
Candor, fairness, intelligence, and demeanor
Ability to remember and relate past occurrences
Means of observation and the opportunity of knowing the matters which they
testified.

INSTRUCTION NO. __
From all the facts and circumstances appearing in evidence and coming to your
observation during the trial, aided by the knowledge which you each possess in
common with other persons, you will reach your conclusions.

DRIVING
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS WITH REGARD TO PROVING THE DEFENDANT WAS
DRIVING THE BOAT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT:

REMEMBER
You are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and
exhibits as you feel are justified when considered with the aid of the knowledge
which you each possess in common with other persons.

You may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense
lead you to draw from the fact which you find to have been established by the
testimony and evidence in the case.

DRIVING
HOW THE STATE WILL PROVE THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING THE BOAT BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT:
Corroborated
eyewitness
testimony
Defendants
statements and
actions
Commonsense
expert testimony
Defendant
driving
THE DEFENDANTS STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS THAT MAKE HIM THE DRIVER
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 in the boat to Brooks Carroll overheard by John Allen
Be sure to tell them Monte was driving.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 at the scene to GRDA Superintendent Chris Carlson
Why are you doing this to me? Im a principal at Jay schools. I have a family.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 at the scene to GRDA Superintendent Chris Carlson
I wasnt driving, Monte was. in response to a Mr. Carlsons question asking where the
Defendant was sitting.
CREDIBILITY:
Interest; relation; bias/prejudice; candor; ability to remember and relate past occurrences; means of observation and opportunity to know.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to EMT Shane McCaslin
When Mr. McCaslin tried to put an IV while administering on-scene trauma care, the
Defendant said, slow down, give me a minute. Defendant then advised him he didnt
need an IV and that he wanted to talk to his lawyer before they drew blood.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to Paramedic Andrea Reid
We were only out to have a good time and look what happens.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to Paramedic Andrea Reid
Told Ms. Reid that he only drank beer and that he had three (3) 3.2 beers, no, I had
Missouri beer. We went to Missouri to get 5-point beer. I dont know how much I drank.
CREDIBILITY:
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
August 2, 2012 at Montes Wake to Brian Smith
I just didnt see it, and Chloe will never have to worry about anything.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
August 6, 2012 at his attorney Winston Connors office to Tyler Brown
Prior to and right up to, you know, the, the, incident, or the, the, accident, that, um, I
was, um, you know, there by, the helm with the driver.
ROGER SHANE CARROLL
December 2012 at the School Board Hearing
Agrees to resign if he is found guilty of this felony offense.
CREDIBILITY:
Be sure
to tell
them
Monte
was
driving
I just
didnt see
it
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Why are
you doing
this to
me? Im a
principal
I have a
family
Chloe will
never
have to
worry
about
anything.
I wasnt
driving,
Monte
was
I was
um, you
know
there by
the helm,
with the
driver
Whoa,
slow
down.
Give me a
minute;.
lawyer
Agreed
that if
hes
found
guilty, he
will
resign
No blood
draw?
Start the
IV.
We were
only out
to have a
good time
and look
what
happens
Three 3.2
beer; no I
had MO
beer; we
went to
MO to get
5pt beer.
REASONABLE INFERENCE
THAT THE DEFENDANT
WAS THE DRIVER OF THE
BOAT
Is the proof of facts or circumstances which gives rise to a reasonable inference of other connected facts that tend to show the
guilt or innocence of a Defendant. It is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances that indicates either guilt or innocence.
CORROBORATED EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING
COMMONSENSE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT PROVES THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING
THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING THE BOAT
Eyewitness
testimony
BY ITSELF =
Defendant driving beyond a

reasonable doubt
Defendants actions
and statements
BY ITSELF =

reasonable doubt
Common sense
expert testimony
BY ITSELF =

reasonable doubt
Defendant driving
beyond a reasonable
doubt
WITH A BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF .08% OR MORE
DEFINITIONS
WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL
Condition in which alcohol has so far affected the nervous system, brain, or muscles
of the driver as to hinder, to an appreciable degree, his ability to operate a vessel in a
manner that an ordinary prudent and cautious person, if in full possession of his/her
faculties, using reasonable care, would operate or drive under like conditions.

BLOOD TEST AND DUI

If you are convinced that the amount of alcohol, by weight or volume, in the defendant's
blood was eight-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) or greater, then you may find the
Defendant to have been under the influence of alcohol.

PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD A BLOOD
ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION OF .08% OR MORE:
STATES EXHIBIT ___

- BRIAN SMITHS TESTIMONY
- IV INCIDENT WITH SHANE MCCASLIN
- WHOA SLOW DOWN
- LAWYER?
- NOT BLOOD TEST? OK. DO IV.

- STATEMENTS TO ANDREA REID
-
-
-
-
2-3 BEERS AT JOHN HAMPTONS

SIPPED ON 4-LOKO/MOONSHINE
1-2 BEERS ON THE BOAT
2-3 BEERS AT UGLYS

PROOF BEYOND "

A REASONABLE DOUBT
THE THAT DEFENDANT HAD A
BAC OF .08% OR MORE
VESSEL
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE TAHOE WAS A VESSEL:

The Tahoe was a vessel.
Tahoe was operable until the wreck event as proven through the testimony.
Tyler Brown observed the vessel to be working earlier that night.
The engine was running after the wreck event.

STATES EXHIBIT ___

PUBLIC WATERWAY
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT GRAND LAKE IS A PUBLIC

WATERWAY:
Tyler Brown
testified that
GRDA is a state
entity with
jurisdiction over
Grand Lake.
Private vessels
not on private
waters
Public waterway
THE BLOOD TEST
Paul Wallace unseals same OSBI Kit No. 123526
Sample properly taken by Lori May from the

Defendants arm (OSBI Kit No. 123526)
Defendant flown to St. Francis in Tulsa County
same day instead of being driven.
Immediately apparent this was an "
injury/fatality wreck
PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE

TEST WAS ADMINISTERED ON A SAMPLE TAKEN
FROM DEFENDANT AS SOON AS PRACTICAL
AFTER INJURY/FATALITY ACCIDENT:
His test confirms Defendant to be ABOVE the legal

limit of .08%
THE BLOOD TEST
CLAIM: DEFENDANT WASNT DRIVING THE BOAT
COMPLETELY DISREGARD
100%
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

SENSE
COMMON
COMMON
SENSE

I JUST DIDNT SEE IT
CLAIM: CANNOT TRUST BLOOD TEST; NOT DUI.
THE TESTIMONY OF GUY WHO ACTUALLY TESTED IT
BRIAN SMITHS TESTIMONY

ANDREA REIDS TESTIMONY

SHANE MCCASLINS TESTIMONY

ROB CEARLEYS TESTIMONY

DEFENDANTS TESTIMONY CORROBORATING THAT
VALENTINES TESTIMONY THAT .09% COULD HAVE
COME FROM ETHANOL THAT HE HAD DRUNK PRIOR
TO HIS ACCIDENT
CLAIM: LACK OF INVESTIGATION BY THE STATE
1,000,000,000,000,000,000
CLAIM: LACK OF INVESTIGATION BY THE STATE
CLAIM: BRIAN SMITH IS NOT CREDIBLE
100%
Mr. Wallaces testimony that the machine worked

DEFENDANT CORROBORATES HIS STORY
properly within expected parameters and that none
of Valentine's could haves affected the result.

Brian Smiths testimony
thatSENSE
the Defendant had
COMMON
been drinking beer and moonshine
that night.

The Defendants own testimony
corroborating Brian

Smiths testimonyTHE
thatWRISTBAND
the Defendant
had been
drinking beer and moonshine that night.
the Defendant was
Rob Cearleys testimony that
EXPERTS
CORROBORATED
KEY ASPECTS
drinking beer and 4-Loko at the reception
and his
belief that the Defendant was intoxicated
Shane McCaslins testimony that the Defendant
refused the IV because he thought it was a blood
test and asked for a lawyer
Brian Smith being 100% sure Defendant was
driving the boat, not Monte.
THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIED . . .

WHATS DIFFERENT TODAY ABOUT YOUR WILLINGNESS/NEED/DESIRE/WHATEVER TO EXPLAIN AS OPPOSED
TO BEFORE?

THEYVE FILED MANSLAUGHTER CHARGES AND I FEEL AT THIS

TIME THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH OF THAT NIGHT.

WERE YOU DRIVING THE BOAT AT THE TIME OF THE WRECK?

I WAS NOT DRIVING THAT BOAT. I DID NOT DRIVE THAT BOAT ALL
THAT ENTIRE EVENING.

THE TRUTH

Closing Presentation (State v. Carroll)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Closing Presentation (State v. Carroll)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

JURY INSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS JURORS

WHAT ARE JURY INSTRUCTIONS?

WHAT MUST THE STATE PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ELEMENTS

The death of a human

Occurring as a direct result of an act or event which happened in the

Caused by the Defendant while in the commission of a misdemeanor

The elements of the DUI (underlying misdemeanor) are as follows:

With a BAC of .08% or more

The blood-alcohol test was administered on a sample taken from the

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

Monte Prices dead

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

OCCURING AS A DIRECT RESULT OF EVENT THAT HAPPENING IN MISDEMEANOR

THE ACT OR EVENT

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

CAUSED BY DEFENDANT WHILE COMMITTING A MISDEMEANOR

DEFENDANT DECIDES TO DRINK ALCOHOL FROM THE

DEFENDANT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL; LEGALLY

DEFENDANT PERFORMS THE ACT OF DRIVING THE BOAT;

WRECK OCCURS WHILE DEFENDANT DRIVING AND

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE UNDERLYING ELEMENTS

A SINGLE ELEMENT WITH SUBELEMENTS, ALL OF WHICH MUST BE PROVEN

While under the influence of alcohol

The blood-alcohol test was administered on a sample taken from the

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING MISDEMEANOR

Brian Smiths testimony was that he

Defendant: I was not driving the

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE ELEMENTS OF THE UNDERLYING MISDEMEANOR

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS WITH REGARD TO PROVING THE DEFENDANT WAS

Interest in the result of the trial

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

Be sure to tell them Monte was driving.

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

July 29, 2012 at the scene to GRDA Superintendent Chris Carlson

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

July 29, 2012 at the scene to GRDA Superintendent Chris Carlson

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to EMT Shane McCaslin

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to Paramedic Andrea Reid

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

July 29, 2012 in the ambulance to Paramedic Andrea Reid

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

August 2, 2012 at Montes Wake to Brian Smith

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

August 6, 2012 at his attorney Winston Connors office to Tyler Brown

ROGER SHANE CARROLL

December 2012 at the School Board Hearing

Agrees to resign if he is found guilty of this felony offense.

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

CORROBORATED EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

COMMONSENSE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT PROVES THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. ROGER SHANE CARROLL

THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING THE BOAT

Defendant driving beyond a