Supreme Court refuses to block Oklahoma’s execution of Michael DeWayne Smith

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court gave Oklahoma the green light Thursday to conduct its first execution of the year, rejecting an emergency appeal from Michael DeWayne Smith. 

Smith was sentenced to death for the murders of Janet Moore and Sarath Pulluru in 2003. He asked the Supreme Court to block his execution because of new evidence about a witness who testified during his trial. 

The justices did not explain their order declining Smith’s emergency appeal. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the ruling. 

Oklahoma executed Smith shortly after the Supreme Court issued its order.

In 2000, Smith was part of an Oklahoma City gang that attempted to rob a convenience store. During the robbery, one of the three gang members involved, Teron Armstrong, was shot and killed by the store owner. 

While Smith was not involved in the robbery, he was close to Armstrong. A few days before the trial for the robbery, he left his apartment with a .357 caliber revolver and headed to Moore’s apartment. Smith believed her son was a police informant. After he entered the apartment, Smith shot and killed Moore. 

Smith then drove to a convenience store next to Tran’s Food Mart, where Armstrong had been killed. He shot Pulluru, who was working at the store, and then set her body on fire. 

Smith told multiple people about the murders, including Sheena Johnson. Johnson reported Smith’s confession. Smith later confessed to the murders, claiming they were retaliation for wrongs against his family. 

All of Smith’s post-conviction appeals have been denied, but he claimed that there was new evidence supporting reconsideration. Smith cited an affidavit from Johnson showing her reluctance to testify in Smith’s trial and admitting that she had not told the whole truth during the trial. 

“Ms. Johnson’s lies which were used to help convict Mr. Smith and sentence him to death, certainly renders her testimony unreliable and insufficient to corroborate Mr. Smith’s confession to detectives,” Mark Henricksen, an attorney with Henricksen & Henricksen Lawyers representing Smith, wrote in his emergency appeal. 

Smith argued that a court needed to reconsider if the jury would have convicted Smith solely on his confession without Johnson’s testimony. 

Oklahoma told the court that the supposed new evidence cited by Smith had already been considered over a decade ago. 

“Although Smith asserts that his claims have a new factual basis, the OCCA soundly rejected that argument and found the claims procedurally defaulted,” Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general, wrote in the state’s brief. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit