John Wayne Duval

Case overview

John Wayne Duvall, 47, was convicted of the September 15, 1986 murder of Karla Duvall, 30, and was executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma on December 17, 1998.

The victim was killed at the couple’s home in Duncan. Prosecutors said Duvall confessed to stabbing her during an argument and then finishing her off by suffocating her with a pillow.

Timeline

• August 1985 — Duvall, his wife Karla (also referred to as the decedent), and their young son moved into a duplex at the Chickasaw Nation Apartment Complex in Duncan, Oklahoma.
• September 15, 1986 — Duvall killed his wife Karla at their home in Duncan; he stated the killing occurred between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
• September 18, 1986 — Duvall walked into the Stephens County Courthouse, approached County Commissioner and former Assistant Police Chief Alvie Chasteen, and asked to speak to him; he said: "I killed my wife Monday night".
• September 19, 1986 — The State of Oklahoma charged Duvall with murder in the first degree.
• November 17, 1986 — The State filed a Bill of Particulars seeking the death penalty based on two aggravating circumstances: prior felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person, and especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel murder.
• May 20, 1987 — The trial judge sentenced Duvall to death in accordance with the jury’s recommendation.
• May 28, 1991 — The Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma affirmed the conviction and death sentence (Duvall v. State, 825 P.2d 621).
• July 23, 1991 — Duvall filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing and to stay the issuance of the mandate.
• December 4, 1992 — Duvall filed an "Application for Post-Conviction Relief" in the district court of Stephens County.
• June 8, 1993 — The district court denied the post-conviction application.
• November 17, 1998 — The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board held a clemency hearing.
• December 17, 1998 — Duvall was executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma.

The offence

In August 1985, Duvall, his wife Karla, and their young son moved into a duplex at the Chickasaw Nation Apartment Complex in Duncan, Oklahoma. Several months later, Duvall moved out because of marital difficulties, but Karla and their young son continued to occupy the apartment.

On September 15, 1986, Duvall killed Karla. Duvall stated that on Monday night, September 15, 1986, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., he killed his wife, Karla. In his confession, he stated that he received a call from his wife on Monday afternoon, that she was angry because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled, and that she later secured a supply of the drug despite his efforts. He stated that he went to a local bar that evening. At about 9:00 p.m., an acquaintance gave him a ride to the duplex where his wife lived; he waited on the porch of an empty duplex next door. At about 10:30 p.m., he knocked on his wife’s door; she asked about their son and he replied that the son was at his grandmother’s home. Duvall then grabbed Karla by the throat, forced his way into the apartment, threw her on the floor, dragged her into the kitchen, took some knives from a drawer, and stabbed her multiple times.

At Karla’s request, he helped her to the shower, washed her off, and laid her on the bed. Karla pleaded for Duvall’s help, and Duvall replied: "I think its too late for that . . . I put (a pillow) over her head". Duvall then placed a pillow over Karla’s head and suffocated her.

The evidence at trial included Duvall’s statement that he killed his wife during an argument by stabbing her and then suffocating her with a pillow.

Investigation and confession

On September 18, 1986, Duvall walked into the Stephens County Courthouse and approached County Commissioner and former Assistant Police Chief Alvie Chasteen, asking to speak to him. Chasteen testified that he asked Duvall if he was in any kind of trouble, and Duvall responded: "I killed my wife Monday night". Chasteen called the sheriff and immediately took Duvall up to the sheriff’s office.

Once inside, Sheriff Alexander read Duvall his Miranda rights. Duvall indicated he understood his rights, signed a waiver form, and stated that he desired to talk to the authorities. Duvall told Sheriff Alexander and Chasteen what happened on September 15, 1986. A tape of the statement to Sheriff Alexander was played to the jury.

After taking the confession, Sheriff Alexander obtained consent to search, notified the District Attorney and other law enforcement authorities, and proceeded to Duvall’s duplex. Investigators found the body of the decedent lying naked on the bed. During the search, various knives, Duvall’s clothing, and other items were found, corroborating Duvall’s statement.

The medical examiner’s testimony at trial and appellate discussion included that Karla Duvall died quickly after being stabbed, and that her wounds would have been painful.

Trial

Charges and jury verdict

Duvall was tried by a jury for the crime of Murder in the First Degree in the District Court of Stephens County, Case No. CRF-86-251.

Duvall was represented by counsel. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and recommended punishment at death after determining the aggravating circumstances that:

• the defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person; and
• the murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.

The trial court sentenced Duvall accordingly.

Prior acts and threats evidence

The State called witnesses to corroborate Duvall’s statement and to provide evidence relevant to Duvall’s anticipated defense of provocation. Connie McKinney testified that approximately two weeks before her death, Karla Duvall came running over and asked her son to lock the door. Karla hid under McKinney’s kitchen table and appeared frightened and trembling. McKinney was going to call the police but Karla stopped her, saying that Duvall would kill her if he was arrested. Duvall arrived and told McKinney to open the door; when she refused, he threatened to kill her as well as his wife. When McKinney told him she had called his brother-in-law and he was on the way, he threatened to kill the brother-in-law as well.

Don Bobbett testified that about three weeks prior to the murder he received a call from Karla asking him to come pick her up after a fight with Duvall. Bobbett also testified about a conversation with Karla in which she said Duvall told her that if she left him, he would kill her.

The trial court overruled Duvall’s objections to statements attributed to Karla and admonished the jury. The court stated:

"Ladies and gentlemen. let me interrupt at this point to speak concerning the statement that you have heard that was made. That statement is introduced not for the truth of the matter related in the statement, but only as that statement relates to the state of mind of the deceased, Karla Duvall, in relation to the defendant, John Duvall. Not for the truth of the statement, but only as it may shed light as to the state of mind of the decedent. All right. Thank you. You may continue, sir."

The trial court also instructed the jury, including Instruction No. 10, to disregard the decedent’s statements as not relevant to any issues then called upon to be decided.

Lesser-included offences

Duvall argued that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on either First Degree Manslaughter or Second Degree Murder. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded a rational juror could not find that Karla Duvall’s death was not the result of a premeditated design to effect death, and that there was clearly no evidence that the death arose from heat of passion. The court held Duvall was therefore not entitled to instructions on first degree manslaughter or second degree murder.

Evidence of the decedent’s drug conviction

Duvall argued the trial court erred in suppressing evidence of Karla Duvall’s prior drug conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeals discussed that the decedent may have had a conviction, but it was irrelevant to the determination of Duvall’s guilt, and addressed that the defense did not claim provocation from the conviction itself. The court concluded the evidence was properly excluded and found the assignment meritless.

Prosecutorial closing argument

Duvall argued improper tactics during closing argument, including inflammatory remarks about blood and smell, remarks that he had butchered the victim, and statements about sympathy and mercy. The Court of Criminal Appeals quoted specific statements and addressed whether they warranted reversal. It referenced, among others, the following statements:

• "If you will recall, he said there was blood all over the house. I'll ask you ladies and gentlemen, to look at State's Exhibit Number 4, Number 3. There is indeed blood all over the house. As a matter of fact, it looks like a slaughter house there in that — in that kitchen. (Tr. 744)"
• "The evidence was that the smell of decaying flesh was so strong that Sheriff Alexander had to make three attempts to enter into the premises to examine — to find Karla — to find out what happened to Karla. (Tr. 771)"

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that, while unnecessary and not to be condoned, these remarks did not affect the verdict. It also addressed other closing remarks including a personal opinion comment that the trial judge admonished.

Voir dire and jury selection

The Court of Criminal Appeals addressed Duvall’s assignments of error regarding jury selection, including refusal to allow rehabilitation of certain veniremen dismissed for cause due to scruples against the death penalty. The court quoted voir dire dialogue involving venireperson Franks:

"BY THE COURT: Well, I understand that you have a problem. I'm sure all of the other eleven jurors do. Some people called it the ultimate question, but of course, the State of Oklahoma and the Defendant are entitled to an answer as to whether you can or you cannot agree with one. Again we are talking in the abstract right now, but shortly this case will not be in the abstract, and it will be presented to a jury, and we need to know your feelings on that. Certainly I understand that you couldn't agree with one without a great amount of soul searching, but the question is, regardless of that, could you without doing violence to your conscience? BY JUROR FRANKS: I don't think I could. BY THE COURT: All right. Let me ask it in this way. If you found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of Murder in The First Degree, and if under the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the law would permit you to consider a sentence of death, are your reservations about the death penalty such, that regardless of the law, the facts and circumstances of the case, you would not consider inflicting the death penalty? BY JUROR FRANKS: I don't think so. BY THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Ma'am. You're excused from this particular case, but we need to see you at 1:00 o'clock this afternoon. (Tr. 316, 317)"

It also quoted dialogue involving venireperson Williams:

"BY THE COURT: Miss Williams, in a case where the law and the evidence warrant, in a proper case, could you without doing violence to your conscience, agree to a verdict imposing the death penalty? BY JUROR WILLIAMS: No. BY THE COURT: Could not. Let me ask you a second question, Miss Williams. If you found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was guilty of Murder In The First Degree and if under the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the law would permit you to consider a sentence of death are [825 P.2d 631] your reservations about the death penalty such, that regardless of the law, the facts and circumstances of the case, you would not consider inflicting the death penalty? BY JUROR WILLIAMS: No, I would not consider it. BY THE COURT: You would not consider it under any circumstances. Is that correct? BY JUROR WILLIAMS: (Juror Williams moved her head up and down). BY THE COURT: Miss Williams, at this time the Court would excuse you from serving on this particular case. Again, though, we'll need to see you tomorrow morning at 9:00. (Tr. 75, 76)"

Sentencing instructions and mitigating circumstances

The Court of Criminal Appeals addressed sentencing instructions and balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It identified sentencing-related instructions including Instruction No. 7, Instruction No. 8, Instruction No. 6, Instruction No. 9, and others.

Instruction No. 8 listed mitigating circumstances as:

1. Defendant surrendered himself;
2. Defendant informed the Sheriff of the killing and its details;
3. No law enforcement agency had previous knowledge of the death of Karla Duvall;
4. Defendant exhibited remorse;
5. Defendant cooperated with law Enforcement authorities;
6. Defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the incident;
7. The Defendant did not attempt to flee the jurisdiction of the State.

The Court of Criminal Appeals also addressed admission of photographs and exhibits including a photograph of the nude body as discovered at the crime scene, a bloody piece of floor tiling, a bloody shirt worn by Duvall, and a bent meat fork used in the homicide and found at the scene. It held the photographs were proper evidence and discussed that they corroborated Duvall’s statements.

In concluding review under 21 O.S. Supp. 1987 § 701.13(C), the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that it could not say the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and it found the evidence supported the statutory aggravating circumstance finding and that the death sentence was factually substantiated and valid.

Appeals

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (direct appeal)

Duvall appealed his conviction and sentence, raising multiple assignments of error. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence. It held:

• evidentiary challenges regarding Karla’s threats were not reversible error,
• no instruction was warranted on lesser included offences (first degree manslaughter or second degree murder),
• evidence of Karla’s prior drug conviction was properly excluded,
• prosecutorial closing remarks did not require reversal,
• jury selection rulings did not require reversal, including dismissal of veniremen for cause,
• trial court discovery and instruction rulings did not amount to reversible error,
• findings regarding aggravating circumstances were valid and supported by evidence.

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (order denying rehearing and evidentiary hearing; mandate)

After the decision, Duvall filed a petition for rehearing and motions for evidentiary hearing and to stay issuance of the mandate. The court combined review of interrelated motions.

The court denied the motion for evidentiary hearing and rejected requests for rehearing and a stay. It stated that a rehearing is allowed only under specified conditions and that Duvall sought to raise a new proposition of error. It addressed Duvall’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and concluded the issue was waived for appellate review because it had not been raised in his petition in error or brief on direct appeal and that, in any event, the evidence against Duvall was overwhelming and counsel’s decisions were tactical. The court denied the motion for evidentiary hearing, denied the requests for rehearing and to stay issuance of the mandate, and ordered issuance of the mandate.

Federal habeas corpus and related appeals (Tenth Circuit)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered Duvall’s appeal from denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial.

The Tenth Circuit’s discussion included claims about:

• ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase,
• alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence,
• lesser-included offence instructions,
• admission of prior bad acts,
• exclusion of evidence of the victim’s drug charge,
• sentencing instructions related to aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury’s discretion,
• jury unanimity regarding mitigating circumstances,
• the constitutionality of the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance,
• alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument,
• alleged inadequate notice under the Bill of Particulars for the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravator.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief and stated it was unpersuaded that Duvall’s trial suffered from constitutional error.

Federal civil rights action and request for injunction (Tenth Circuit)

The Tenth Circuit also addressed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction barring execution, related to clemency procedures. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the TRO and preliminary injunction and granting judgment for defendants. It concluded Duvall failed to show a due process violation regarding clemency procedures because he received the clemency hearing and the Board deadlocked, and thus no recommendation was forwarded to the Governor.

Sentencing

The jury convicted Duvall of murder in the first degree. During the penalty phase, the jury found that both statutory aggravating circumstances existed and recommended that Duvall be sentenced to death.

On May 20, 1987, the trial judge sentenced Duvall to death in accordance with the jury’s recommendation.

In the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals decision affirming sentence, the court addressed statutory requirements including 21 O.S. Supp. 1987 § 701.13(C), and held the death sentence was factually substantiated and valid.

Outcome and execution

After the direct appeal and other proceedings, Duvall remained under sentence of death.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals scheduled his execution for 12:01 a.m. on December 17, 1998.

Duvall filed an application for clemency with Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board. The Board conducted a clemency hearing on November 17, 1998. At the conclusion, the Board deadlocked on whether to recommend clemency by a two-two vote, with one member of the five-person Board abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Because Oklahoma’s constitution required a majority vote for clemency recommendation, no recommendation was forwarded to Governor Frank Keating.

Governor Keating reportedly stated he would not grant clemency for murderers. Duvall filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief to bar execution until he had a meaningful opportunity to present his plea for clemency not predetermined by the Governor. The district court denied his request for a TRO and preliminary injunction and granted judgment for defendants, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Duvall was executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma on December 17, 1998.