Christian Wages v The State of Oklahoma

M-2017-954

Filed: Mar. 7, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State of Oklahoma

Summary

Christian Wages appealed his conviction for Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery. Conviction and sentence were modified to simple Assault and Battery. Judge Lumpkin dissented. In the case, Wages was found guilty of Domestic Abuse after a trial without a jury. He was sentenced to one year in jail but only had to serve the first thirty days and pay a fine. He had to attend counseling and was on probation for eleven months. Wages argued that the court made mistakes, including allowing hearsay evidence and not proving he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed that there was a problem with the hearsay evidence because the main witness did not testify. They said this evidence was not allowed and modified the conviction to simple Assault and Battery instead of Domestic Abuse. They ordered a new sentencing to happen based on this lesser charge. Judge Lumpkin, however, disagreed and believed that the evidence presented was enough to support the original charge of Domestic Abuse.

Decision

In the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CM-2017-322, the judgment of September 8, 2017, finding Appellant guilty of Domestic Abuse - Assault and Battery is hereby MODIFIED to find Appellant guilty of simple Assault and Battery, and this matter is therefore REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that it enter judgment accordingly and resentence Appellant within the appropriate range of punishment as set out for that offense at 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(B). Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there error in allowing hearsay evidence that violated the defendant's right to confrontation?
• Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wages was guilty of Domestic Abuse?
• Should Mr. Wages's conviction be reversed due to the cumulative effect of errors depriving him of a fair proceeding?

Findings

• the court erred in allowing hearsay evidence that violated the defendant's right to confrontation
• evidence was not sufficient to prove the required special relationship for the offense of Domestic Abuse
• no cumulative error exists as only a single error was found

M-2017-954

Mar. 7, 2019

Christian Wages

Appellant

v

The State of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

ROWLAND, JUDGE:

In the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CM-2017-322, Appellant, Christian Wages, while represented by counsel, received a non-jury trial before the Honorable Susan Zwaan, Special Judge, on one count of Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C). Judge Zwaan found Appellant guilty of that offense, and on September 8, 2017, she imposed a sentence of one year in jail with all but the first thirty days suspended, and a fine of $500.00. Judge Zwaan conditioned the suspension order on Appellant attending domestic abuse counseling for 52 weeks and being under supervised probation through the District Attorney’s Office for eleven months. On the date of sentencing, Appellant posted bond pending appeal.

Appellant raises three propositions of error on appeal:

I. The court erred in allowing hearsay evidence of an element of the crime that clearly violated the standard set by the case of Crawford vs. Washington and was clearly hearsay outside of any exception to the hearsay rule which violates defendant’s right to confrontation.

II. The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wages was guilty of Domestic Abuse because the witnesses never properly identified the alleged victim sufficient for a conviction.

III. Mr. Wages’s conviction should be reversed as the cumulative effect of errors deprived him of a fair proceeding and a reliable outcome.

Having thoroughly considered these propositions of error and the entire record before this Court, including the original record, transcript, and briefs of the parties, the Court FINDS error requiring modification of judgment and the remanding of Appellant’s matter for resentencing.

Appellant’s Proposition II argues the State presented insufficient evidence to prove that he committed the charged offense of Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery upon R.S. R.S. did not testify at trial. Appellant now contends there was insufficient evidence to prove that the person whom he had assaulted was R.S. On a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, 99 21-23, 424 P.3d 677, 684. Viewed in that light, we find any rational trier of fact could have found Appellant guilty of simple Assault and Battery upon R.S. beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as explained below and based upon Appellant’s Proposition I, we cannot find that there was sufficient admissible evidence proving that special relationship required under 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C), for the greater offense of Domestic Abuse.

Section 644(C) lists a number of relationships between individuals that can give rise to an offense of Domestic Abuse. When one party to that relationship commits an assault and battery against another party, the resulting offense is Domestic Abuse. The particular relationship that the State sought to prove in Appellant’s case was that he and R.S. were members of the same household. See 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C) (Any person who commits any assault and battery against a person living in the same household as the defendant shall be guilty of domestic abuse.). The evidence on which the State relied to prove that Appellant and R.S. lived in the same household was that both Appellant and R.S. provided the investigating Deputy Sheriff with the same street address within the City of Lawton as their residence.

Appellant objected to the admission of R.S.’s out-of-court statement about her residence address on grounds of hearsay and on grounds that its admission violated Appellant’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. As we find R.S.’s out-of-court statement was inadmissible hearsay under the Oklahoma Evidence Code, we need not reach Appellant’s Sixth Amendment claim. The Evidence Code defines hearsay as follows, Hearsay’ means a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(A)(3). Except for certain enumerated exceptions provided by the Legislature, none of which are applicable here, that Code declares hearsay to be inadmissible. 12 O.S.2011, § 2802. Outside R.S.’s out-of-court statement, there was no admissible evidence proving R.S. lived in the same household as the accused. Consequently, the State at most proved only a simple misdemeanor Assault and Battery. For that reason, we modify Appellant’s judgment to that lesser offense and remand for resentencing as set forth below.

In Proposition III, Appellant argues that we should grant relief on the basis of cumulative error. He contends that if the errors presented in his Propositions I and II do not individually show prejudice sufficient to justify relief, then this Court should consider those errors in the aggregate and find that cumulatively they have resulted in depriving him of a fair trial. Because we have found Appellant has shown only a single error occurred, an error upon which we have granted relief, there can be no cumulative error. See Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 40, 274 P.3d 161, 171.

DECISION

In the District Court of Comanche County, Case No. CM-2017-322, the judgment of September 8, 2017, finding Appellant guilty of Domestic Abuse – Assault and Battery is hereby MODIFIED to find Appellant guilty of simple Assault and Battery, and this matter is therefore REMANDED to the District Court with instructions that it enter judgment accordingly and resentence Appellant within the appropriate range of punishment as set out for that offense at 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(B). Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019), MANDATE IS ORDERED ISSUED on the filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(C).
2. 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(A)(3).
3. 12 O.S.2011, § 2802.
4. 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 644(B).

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 644(C) (2014) - Domestic Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2801(A)(3) (2011) - Hearsay Definition
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2802 (2011) - Hearsay Inadmissibility

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19, I 36, 422 P.3d 788, 799-800
• Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, 99 21-23, 424 P.3d 677, 684
• Neloms v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, I 40, 274 P.3d 161, 171
• Miller v. State, 2004 OK CR 29, IT 50, 98 P.3d 738, 748
• Primeaux v. State, 2004 OK CR 16, I 39, 88 P.3d 893, 902
• Primeaux v. State, 2004 OK CR 16, I 43, 88 P.3d at 903
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1369 n. 9, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004)
• Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 2081-82, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985)
• Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20, IT 40, 423 P.3d 617, 632
• Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, I 15, 90 P.3d 556, 559
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, I 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-204