" where one of the witnesses talks about thinking that Rafford spilled a drink "or something", because he was leaning over the table and talking to Bales, and then Bales punches him as he stands up."

If this is the case then I wouldn't have a problem of a Manslaughter charge.

The case has been filed as a manslaughter charge, and assigned to Judge Elliott. Mr. Bales has been released on a $10,000 bond. As a result of that, the chances of my being assigned to this case are about nil.

The first probable cause affidavit says that Mr. Rafford was there with friends, and during the evening he walked over to where Mr. Bales was sitting and spoke with him. Then Bales struck him in the face and knocked him to the floor. The second PC affidavit says that Bales struck him one time, knocking him unconscious, and that Rafford's orbital plate was cracked, causing bone to go into his brain, killing him. Neither of the PC affidavits go into the cause of the fight.

They've charged him with Manslaughter 1, which is a death that occurs during the commission of a misdemeanor. So what the DA is going to argue is that Bales' punch was not legally justified, and death resulted. That's going to be significantly easier for them to prove than murder. Murder would require them to prove that Bales intentionally killed Mr. Rafford. There have been a lot of people on this thread who are pissed off that Bales would punch someone for a lick, who think he committed murder. In this situation it's only murder if Bales intended to cause his death when he threw that punch. I believe that would be very difficult for the DA to prove. Normally a punch doesn't cause someone to die, and from what I've seen there aren't any witnesses who heard Bales say something like "now I will use the ancient art of the Fist of a Thousand Exploding Skulls technique", which is basically what they would need to prove murder. So instead they file manslaughter, so they only have to prove Bales was unjustified in his punch, and that it resulted in death. Much much easier.

There is a police report that I saw a few days ago, and it looks like it's been taken down now because I can't find it, where one of the witnesses talks about thinking that Rafford spilled a drink "or something", because he was leaning over the table and talking to Bales, and then Bales punches him as he stands up. I don't know where that report went (or even where I found it initially), but it's not up anymore. I'm sure it will be turned over to whoever becomes Bales' attorney.

As far as the ultimate outcome of the case, I'm sure the state will deny that Rafford ever licked Bales. They are going to present their case and try to argue that Bales is a hothead who overreacts with violence at any situation. They'll say Rafford bumped the table and spilled a drink, leaned over to apologize (or something of that nature), and that Bales punched him and killed him. Bales will argue that Rafford came over and licked him in the face, probably saying some confrontational words at the same time, and that Bales defended himself. If Rafford leaned over and said "hey baby, nice crotch" and licks Bales, then Bales is likely justified in punching him. Death resulting from the blow is a freak accident. Bales certainly had no reason to expect that his normal human strength punch in the face was going to cause the result it did.

The thin skull rule isn't really the appropriate doctrine here. There are specific elements that the state has to meet. The reason that the elements of manslaughter are the way they are (death that occurs during a misdemeanor) may be similar to the principles of the thin skull rule, but it's the elements that are important here.

So here's (generally) what the jury will have to consider, and what their decision may turn on:

-Did Rafford do some act to instigate the confrontation?
-Did Rafford's act (if any) justify Bales in the use of force to respond?
-Was Bales' use of force that of an appopriate level to respond to Rafford's act?

If the answers to those questions are "yes", then it's a not guilty verdict. If one of those answers is "no", then it's probably a guilty verdict. You'll likely never know if it's jury nullification because that's not something that they announce. They'll just say "not guilty" and you're left to wonder why.

There's another important detail as well. Bales will likely argue that Title 21 Section 733 applies. It's the justifiable homicide statute. He won't even have to go to self-defense here. The statute reads, in part:
A. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to terminate or prevent the commission of a forcible felony
B. As used in this section, "forcible felony" means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.

This is the "we don't like that Jerome Ersland was convicted so we passed this new law" statute. Bales would argue that Rafford was sexually assaulting him, and that he used force that he believed to be necessary to terminate the commission of that felony against him. "He was sexually licking me, I punched him so that he would stop licking me. I believed that was necessary." It's similar to, but more broad than, just self defense.

Is there a Oklahoma statute/case law that actually defines sexual assault? How does a jury differentiate sexual/non sexual licking? If the prosecutor shows that the victim was neither gay or bisexual and the defense attorney has nothing to rebut it is the lick nothing more than "just a lick"(singular)?

Is there a Oklahoma statute/case law that actually defines sexual assault? How does a jury differentiate sexual/non sexual licking? If the prosecutor shows that the victim was neither gay or bisexual and the defense attorney has nothing to rebut it is the lick nothing more than "just a lick"(singular)?

The relevant parts of the statute:

21 OS 1123
B. No person shall commit sexual battery on any other person. "Sexual battery" shall mean the intentional touching, mauling or feeling of the body or private parts of any person sixteen (16) years of age or older, in a lewd and lascivious manner:

1. Without the consent of that person;

From the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions on sexual battery:

The words "lewd" and "lascivious" have the same meaning and signify conduct which is lustful and which evinces an eagerness for sexual indulgence.

--

Now the issue with 21 OS 733 is that it is dependent upon the perception of the person using the violence. In this instance, it wouldn't matter if Mr. Rafford is gay. "He walked up and licked me. I felt it was a sexual assault." That appears to be all that is needed under that statute. Can he reasonably believe that Rafford is committing a sexual battery if he walks up and licks him on the face?

Hoyasooner: Thank you for that explanation of the facts and the possibilities at Post 180. It really helped to clarify some of the realities of this situation. In other words, it spelled out the way things are rather than the way we might simply think they are.

Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-dad-david-barajas-acquitted-murdering-man-who-killed-sons-n190286?cid=sm_n_main_1_20140827_30575716)

Example of jury nullification?

Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons - NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-dad-david-barajas-acquitted-murdering-man-who-killed-sons-n190286?cid=sm_n_main_1_20140827_30575716)

Example of jury nullification?

Perhaps. On the other hand, perhaps an example of Blind Justice Rearing It's Unexpected If Not Ugly Head . . ?

No gun found. No witness. No mention of a confession.
Sounds like someone understands reasonable doubt to me.

No gun found. No witness. No mention of a confession.
Sounds like someone understands reasonable doubt to me.

Ever heard of a book involving the lack of actual debate in the Naked Public Square?
(some theologian put some thoughts together and made a book out of them.)
Sorry . . . of course you read that book. (and I salute you for it. even if you didn't.)

No gun found. No witness. No mention of a confession.
Sounds like someone understands reasonable doubt to me.

Also a good example of why jury nullification can be hard to identify. I only know the cursory facts, but it certainly sounds like a case wherein a jury might want to acquit in spite of the law / jury instructions. The evidentiary issues provide a perfect "out". Even if a juror wanted to nullify, he / she would never have to admit it.

Looks like Irvin Box will be representing this defendant. Entry of Appearance filed yesterday.

Looks like Irvin Box will be representing this defendant. Entry of Appearance filed yesterday.

Wouldn't be my first choice (or my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th either). But, should be interesting to follow. Lets hope counsel learned something from the Ersland case.