Lexplug logoLexplug

Romano v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
1995 OK CR 74, 909 P.2d 92, 66 O.B.A.J. 4015 (1995)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Post-arrest non-verbal conduct, such as nodding in response to an accusation, is admissible as an adoptive admission if the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to remain silent and participates in police questioning.


Facts:

  • John Joseph Romano and an accomplice, David Woodruff, planned to rob Lloyd Thompson.
  • The two men gained entry to Thompson's apartment and turned up the stereo volume to mask the noise of their attack.
  • Romano and Woodruff murdered Thompson by stabbing him.
  • After the murder, Romano disposed of their bloody clothing and knives in a dumpster.
  • Romano traveled to Clovis, New Mexico, where he was eventually arrested and questioned by police officers.
  • During the custodial interview, Romano waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with the officers.
  • When an officer stated, 'John, you and I both know that you are guilty,' Romano nodded his head up and down.
  • Immediately following this gesture, Romano requested an attorney, and the interview terminated.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Romano with Murder in the First Degree in the District Court of Oklahoma County.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • The jury found Romano guilty of First Degree Murder.
  • During the sentencing phase, the jury found two aggravating circumstances and recommended the death penalty.
  • The trial court sentenced Romano to death in accordance with the jury's verdict.
  • Romano appealed the judgment and sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a defendant's non-verbal head nod in response to a police officer's accusation of guilt admissible as an adoptive admission when the defendant has waived his right to remain silent?


Opinions:

Majority - Strubhar

Yes, the defendant's head nod serves as an admissible adoptive admission because he had validly waived his right to silence. The court reasoned that nodding one's head is commonly understood to convey agreement. Since Romano had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and was actively participating in the interview, the constitutional protections against commenting on a defendant's silence were not violated. The court applied a standard ensuring the defendant heard and understood the accusation, concluding that any ambiguity regarding the specific meaning of the nod was a factual question for the jury to resolve.


Concurring - Lumpkin

Yes, the conviction and sentence should be affirmed based on the evidence presented. Justice Lumpkin wrote separately to urge the court to adopt a unified 'Spuehler-type' approach for evaluating the sufficiency of both direct and circumstantial evidence, rather than applying separate standards of review for each type of evidence.


Concurring - Lane

Yes, the evidence of the head nod was properly admitted, though the legal classification differs from the majority's view. Justice Lane argued that a head nod should be classified as a 'verbal action' equivalent to speaking the word 'yes,' rather than merely an adoptive admission. In this view, the nod constituted a direct positive response to the officer's question.



Analysis:

Romano v. State clarifies the admissibility of non-verbal conduct during custodial interrogations in Oklahoma. The court distinguishes between pre-arrest silence and post-arrest conduct following a Miranda waiver, establishing that once a suspect agrees to talk, their non-verbal reactions—specifically unambiguous gestures like nodding—can be used as admissions of guilt. The case also provides significant guidance on the limits of expert testimony; specifically, the court ruled that a blood spatter expert cannot give an ultimate opinion on whether a defendant was an 'active participant' versus a 'passive observer,' as this usurps the jury's role. However, despite finding error in the expert's testimony, the court found it harmless due to overwhelming evidence.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Romano v. State (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"