Loyd Lafevers

People

• Loyd Winford Lafevers — defendant; Oklahoma County death row inmate
• Randall Cannon (also referenced as Randall Eugene Cannon) — co-defendant; sentenced to death
• Addie Hawley (also referenced as Addie Mae Hawley, 84) — victim of kidnapping, murder, and associated offences
• Chlouber — Colorado State Senator; nephew of the murder victim’s aunt
• Kim Lafevers — sister of Loyd Lafevers
• Drew Edmondson — Oklahoma Attorney General
• Timothy Leonard — Federal District Judge
• Patrick J. Ehlers Jr. — assistant federal public defender
• Jack Fisher — Oklahoma City attorney who represented Cannon (as stated)
• Catherine Burton — one of Lafevers’ trial attorneys
• Lou Keel — Oklahoma County Assistant District Attorney
• Tim Leonard — U.S. District Judge (also referenced as “Tim Leonard”)
• Judge Murphy — judge who concurred in the result in the appellate decision
• Porfilio, Brorby, and Murphy — Circuit Judges (as listed)
• David Hawkins — inmate cellmate of Lafevers; a witness whose first-trial testimony was later read into evidence

Background

Loyd Winford Lafevers was convicted in state court of kidnapping and murdering 84-year-old Addie Hawley. He was sentenced to death.

Lafevers and co-defendant Randall Cannon were tried jointly and each was convicted and received the death penalty for Hawley’s murder. Those convictions were reversed on appeal. Lafevers and Cannon were subsequently retried separately in 1993, found guilty, and again sentenced to death.

The offence

On June 24, 1985, Loyd Lafevers and co-defendant Randall Cannon decided to steal a car after Lafevers’ car broke down in a northwest Oklahoma City neighborhood. They forced their way into the home of Addie Hawley, ransacked her home, and took eight dollars from her purse, along with keys to her car and the garage door opener.

Hawley was taken out of the house and into the car. Cannon drove for just over a mile before pulling over so that Hawley could be put in the trunk. The two men drove to a convenience store where they bought a two liter bottle of orange soda. After drinking some of the soda, they poured the rest out and filled the bottle with gasoline.

Lafevers directed Cannon to drive to a secluded area where Hawley was removed from the trunk. The material describes that there was evidence presented at trial indicating that Hawley was raped, and it states that neither defendant admitted having committed rape or sodomy. Each man indicated in his pretrial confession to police and during testimony at trial that the other man had committed the sexual offences while he remained as a lookout.

After the sex acts, gasoline was poured from the orange soda bottle on Hawley and she was set on fire. The two men drove the car a short distance away and also set the car on fire. Rescue personnel were called soon after the fires were set.

A narrative summary also states that Lafevers and Cannon broke into Hawley’s home, beat the 84-year-old owner, kidnapped her, put her in the trunk, doused her with gasoline, and set her car on fire. It states that she died 5–6 hours later.

The material also states that Hawley was found lying nude and incoherent near midnight, and that she died the following day at Baptist Hospital in the early morning hours of June 25. It stated that she had been badly beaten, that more than 65 percent of her body had been severely burned (and also that she had burns on over 60% of her body), and that she suffered a blunt injury to the forehead and had two black eyes along with multiple cuts and bruises.

The text states that prosecutors alleged she had been raped and sodomized. It also states: “Lafevers was acquitted of the rape and sodomy charges.”

Investigation

The material states that both Lafevers and co-defendant Randall Cannon confessed to participation in the crime, and that each said the other was the more active participant.

It states that DNA testing was sought and that Lafevers claimed DNA evidence could produce substantial evidence of innocence. It states that Edmondson said DNA evidence would not produce evidence of actual innocence because results would not negate or even minimize Lafevers’ guilt.

The material states that Lafevers’ defense attorneys hoped DNA testing would convince the clemency decision-maker that Lafevers was not the one who beat and killed Hawley. It also states that DNA results showed blood found on a pair of pants was not Lafevers’ but his co-defendant’s, Randall Eugene Cannon.

It states that Edmondson said recent DNA tests of blood from a pair of jeans used as evidence in Lafevers’ trial only showed the prosecution’s theory was flawed, and that there was ample evidence to put Lafevers at the scene as an active participant. It states that there was also a request to test unidentified hairs found at the crime scene, according to court documents.

Arrest

The material states that Lafevers was arrested at about 8:00 AM on June 26, 1985. It states that a police officer began interrogating him shortly thereafter and advised him of his Miranda rights. It states that Lafevers waived his rights and answered questions for approximately fifteen minutes. It also includes an exchange about giving “body” samples:

Officer: “Would you be willing to uh, give us hair samples, blood sample [sic]. Anything that we might need for our investigation?”
LaFevers: “Yeah, just as soon as I talk to a lawyer.”
Officer: “Okay, you have a right to do that.”
LaFevers: “I don, you'll have to get me one cause I ain't got one.”
Officer: “Okay. That's right, now are you wanting the lawyer just, just for the decision on that... before you talk to me?”
LaFevers: “I just need to talk to one.”
Officer: “Okay. Are you wanting to terminate our interview now, is that what you are telling me?”
LaFevers: “No, you can leave this [tape recorder] on. [Inaudible] 2”
Officer: “That's what I'm saying, are you wanting to stop it now since you know you told me you wanted a lawyer?”
LaFevers: “Well, when can you get me a lawyer?”
Officer: “That'll be up to the courts, they'll get you one, ya know, that's no problem. I just need to know, you know if you're through talking to us or if you want to continue to talk?”
LaFevers: “No, I'll talk to you.”

Trial

Charges and convictions in 1986 trial

At the joint trial in March of 1986, a jury convicted both defendants of first-degree murder, burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, kidnapping, larceny of a motor vehicle, arson in the third degree, rape in the first degree, and anal sodomy.

The state trial court sentenced Lafevers to death for the first-degree murder charge and to terms of years on the remaining counts.

Direct appeal after 1986 trial

On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed convictions on first-degree murder, arson in the third degree, rape in the first degree, and anal sodomy. It held the defendants had mutually antagonistic defenses on those counts and the failure to grant Lafevers a severance constituted reversible error.

Retrial and second set of verdicts (1993)

On retrial, a second jury convicted Lafevers on first-degree murder and arson in the third degree, but acquitted him on charges of rape in the first degree and anal sodomy.

During the penalty phase, the jury found three aggravating circumstances:

1. The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
2. There was a probability that Lafevers would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.
3. The murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution.

The trial court sentenced Lafevers to death on the murder count and forty years on the arson count.

Appeals and post-conviction in state court

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal, and it denied an application for post-conviction relief.

The material also states that the second jury found aggravating circumstances and that the state’s sentencing theory involved murder to avoid arrest or prosecution.

The material also states that in closing arguments at Lafevers’ 1993 trial, both prosecutors mentioned the pants and made an inference about belonging to Lafevers when they were bloodied while beating Hawley shortly before she was doused with gasoline and set on fire. It states that Edmondson later said “The prosecutor left an inference with the jury that turned out to be inaccurate,” and that he stated: “That doesn't mean (Lafevers) is innocent.”

Sentencing

Lafevers was sentenced to death for Hawley’s murder, and the trial court also imposed forty years on the arson count after the 1993 retrial.

In March (year referenced by the material’s timeline), he had a scheduled execution date that was stayed for DNA testing. The material states that he was twice sentenced to death and that he was on death row.

Appeals

Federal habeas appeal (Tenth Circuit)

The material includes a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit with the case caption “LOYD W. LAFEVERS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. GARY E. GIBSON AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES,” with the decision date shown as “June 16, 1999.”

The appellate court stated that it found no error and affirmed the judgment of the district court, denying relief.

It includes multiple contested issues:

Miranda and invocation of counsel issue

Lafevers argued that the state trial court should have suppressed statements obtained after his alleged invocation of counsel. The material recounts that:

• A police officer began interrogating him after advising him of his Miranda rights.
• The exchange led to statements after clarification.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument, stating:

“After a knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning through equivocal statements until a suspect clearly requests an attorney. Here, LaFevers' statements do not clearly indicate whether LaFevers wanted an attorney before he agreed to give body samples or simply wanted to stop talking altogether. Any ordinary person might find the exchange ambiguous, especially given LaFevers' repeated mention of a lawyer coupled with his refusal to say he wanted to stop the interview. [Officer] Mitchell followed the only reasonable course open to him. He avoided any substantive interrogation until the problem was clarified and questioned LaFevers only regarding his willingness to talk and wish for an attorney. The record does not support any suggestion that Mitchell phrased his requests to urge LaFevers to talk, or that he gave LaFevers any impermissible advice. Contrary to the suggestion in LaFevers' brief, Mitchell did not tell LaFevers he would not receive counsel. LaFevers correctly contends that his final statement, "No, I'll talk to you," did not create any ambiguity in his previous statements. That statement resolved the considerable ambiguity to that point.”

Confrontation Clause issue involving David Hawkins

Lafevers argued the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause by reading into evidence David Hawkins’ first-trial testimony during the second trial.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument. It described Hawkins’ refusal to testify without consulting counsel and stated that Hawkins was declared unavailable under 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2804(A)(2) because he disobeyed a court order to testify, not because of refusal based on a valid privilege.

It included verbatim exchanges:

Trial Court: “I want to be sure that you know what you're doing, that you don't want to answer any questions here because, in your opinion, if you do answer, it might tend to incriminate you; is that right?”
Hawkins: “Yes, sir, that is correct.”
Trial Court: “The Court finds that this witness is unavailable.”

It also stated:

“His statement that he might if he could talk to an attorney is speculative at best, not an expression of intent.”

Double Jeopardy issue (felony murder with kidnapping predicate)

Lafevers argued that prosecution under the felony-murder rule in the second trial, with kidnapping as predicate felony, violated Double Jeopardy because he had already been convicted of kidnapping.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument and stated:

“LaFevers here correctly complains that he should not have been charged with the alternative count of felony murder, since the predicate felony relied on was the kidnap charge of which he was convicted in 1986 and which was affirmed by this Court in LaFevers 1. The State essentially concedes this point, as they should. However, the basis for this prohibition is the principle that, where two alternatives exist and only one is constitutional or proper, a verdict cannot be upheld because the jury may have relied on an invalid alternative to reach a guilty verdict. That is not the case here. Fortunately the jury received a verdict form for each alternative, and we know absolutely that LaFevers was convicted of malice murder, not felony murder. ....”

It further stated:

“The issues are subject to a harmless error analysis.”

Jury instruction on “reasonable doubt”

Lafevers argued the trial court violated constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury on meaning of “reasonable doubt” sua sponte.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this, stating:

“LaFevers did not request such an instruction at trial. LaFevers admits that this Court has consistently held that "reasonable doubt" is self-explanatory and any instruction on it is error, but argues that, by analogy, the term should be defined just as terms of an offense are defined for a jury. LaFevers incorrectly claims that if the term is defined the definition must be correct, so failure to define the term is fundamental error. This does not follow logically from the premise that an instruction given to the jury must be accurate. LaFevers offers no persuasive authority to suggest that this Court should reconsider its previous decisions.”

Ineffective assistance at penalty phase for failing to present drug-use mitigation

Lafevers argued counsel was ineffective during penalty phase due to failure to present evidence of drug use and abuse.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the claim and stated that the allegations failed to meet the standard for ineffectiveness. It noted evidence Hawkins testified that Lafevers said he had been on “crystal speed for three or four days before the crime,” and it stated that other claims were not reflected in the record before the court.

It also stated that counsel called seven witnesses in the first stage and thirteen in the second stage, including Lafevers’ mother and son.

Other procedural matters in the appellate decision

The material states that certain claims were procedurally defaulted, including:

• A claim about involuntary nolo contendere plea.
• A claim about entitlement to DNA testing.

The material also states that other claims heard in first instance were rejected, including claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to request DNA testing and that the federal district court improperly denied discovery for DNA testing.

Clemency and execution stay timeline (as stated in the material)

The material contains multiple dated events relevant to stays and execution scheduling:

• It states that the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board held a clemency hearing for Lafevers on January 29, 2001 and voted 4-0 to deny clemency.
• It states that on March 7, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay for Lafevers.
• It states that on the morning of March 8, Judge Leonard issued a 90-day stay of execution.
• It states that Lafevers was scheduled to be executed at 12:01am on Thursday, March 9; that Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson filed an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court; and that the request was denied on the evening of March 8.
• It states that Lafevers’ clemency hearing had been scheduled for 10am on March 8 but was delayed due to the stay, and that the Pardon and Parole Board recessed three times and adjourned until March 21.
• It states that on July 31 the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the stay “until November 1, 2000, or until a ruling on the application is made in the district court, whichever first occurs.”

The material also states that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals set January 30 as the execution date, and that this was requested by Attorney General Edmondson after the rejection of appeals.

Outcome

Loyd Winford Lafevers was executed by lethal injection in Oklahoma at 9:19pm on January 30, 2001 at Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

The material also states that he was pronounced dead at 9:19pm and that the state executed him via lethal injection.

Aftermath

• The material states that Edmondson asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set an execution date for Lafevers and quoted Edmondson saying:

• The material includes statements by Edmondson:

• It states that Edmondson said:

• It also quotes Edmondson:

• The material includes a statement from Kim Lafevers:

• It includes a statement from Ken Chlouber:

• It includes a statement from Chlouber:

• It states that Catherine Burton said in an affidavit:

• It includes a statement attributed to Patrick J. Ehlers Jr.:

Patrick J. Ehlers Jr., an assistant federal public defender, said Lafevers intends to appeal Leonard's ruling to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The pants were the only direct physical evidence relied on by the state to support the allegation Mr. Lafevers was a direct participant in the murder of Addie Hawley,” Catherine Burton, one of his trial attorneys, said in a Feb. 10 affidavit.

“This guy has fouled Oklahoma with every breath since he murdered my aunt,” said Chlouber.

“This guy will go to hell, and that's the place for him,” the Leadville Republican said Tuesday after he was excused from legislative work to attend Wednesday's clemency hearing and witness today's scheduled execution.

“We're just hoping for more time,” said Lafevers' sister, Kim Lafevers.

“I have said repeatedly from the beginning, Loyd Lafevers is guilty of the murder of Addie Hawley and warrants the punishment assessed by the jury,” he said.

“I am pleased the court has marked what should be the end of Lafevers' attempts to delay the punishment given him by a jury of his peers,” Edmondson said.

“Loyd Lafevers brutally beat and burned a helpless 84-year-old woman and left her to die,” said Edmondson.

“There has been much legal wrangling in the case of Loyd Lafevers,” said Edmondson.
“The fact remains that the DNA evidence will not produce evidence of actual innocence because, regardless of the outcome of the tests, the results would not negate or even minimize Lafevers' guilt.”

Other details

• The material states that Lafevers was 35 at the time he was pronounced dead and executed; it also references Lafevers, 34 in one passage.
• The material states that Lafevers had been scheduled to be executed “last March” but received a stay for DNA testing.
• It states that Lafevers was the seventh Oklahoma inmate executed that year and the 37th since executions resumed in the state in 1990.
• It states that Oklahoma had the highest per capita execution rate in the country last year and was leading the nation again in 2001.
• The material states that attorney Lou Keel called the case the worst he had seen in close to 100 murder cases he had worked in nearly two decades.
• The material states that Lafevers told investigators he did not know until the next day that Hawley had been killed and includes a verbatim June 27, 1985, statement:

“By then I thought I had talked him into just letting her out, so I run up the street to watch down another street to see if any cars was coming and I thought he was just going to let her out there,” Lafevers said in a June 27, 1985, statement.

• The material states that Lafevers was 19 with a 10th-grade education in June of 1985. It also states that after Lafevers’ car broke down, he and Randall Eugene Cannon went to Hawley’s home and kicked in the front door.
• The material states that Hawley attempted to escape but was brought back to the house and ransacked.
• It states that Hawley was taken to another site in the trunk of her car, beaten and set on fire, and found still alive but died a few hours later.
• It states that there were acquittals for rape and sodomy charges after the second trial, and that Lafevers and Cannon each blamed the other for Hawley’s murder.