Wesley Wayne Dodson v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2005-97

Filed: Oct. 4, 2006

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Wesley Wayne Dodson appealed his conviction for two counts of First Degree Rape. Conviction and sentence were reversed and he was ordered to have a new trial. Judge Lumpkin dissented.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was Dodson denied his right to an impartial and fair jury in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Oklahoma Constitution?
• Did the trial court allow the introduction of child hearsay in violation of Dodson's rights and the Court's directives?
• Was the State's evidence insufficient as a matter of law to sustain its burden of proof?
• Did the accumulation of errors result in a fundamentally unfair trial?

Findings

• the court erred
• the court erred
• the evidence was sufficient
• the errors in Propositions I and II require reversal

F-2005-97

Oct. 4, 2006

Wesley Wayne Dodson

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, PRESIDING JUDGE:

After a jury trial in Garfield County District Court Case No. CF-2003-749, Wesley Dodson was convicted of two counts of First Degree Rape in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1114, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. Following the jury’s recommendation, the Honorable John Michael sentenced Dodson to serve consecutive sentences of fifty (50) years’ imprisonment for each count. Dodson has perfected his appeal to this Court.

Dodson raises the following propositions of error:

I. Dodson was denied his right to an impartial and fair jury in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Sections 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

II. The introduction of child hearsay was allowed by the trial court in non-compliance with the Court’s directives and resulted in improper vouching for the minor complaining witnesses in this case in violation of Dodson’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

III. The State’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain its burden of proof.

IV. The accumulation of errors resulted in a fundamentally unfair trial.

After thoroughly considering the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, briefs, and exhibits of the parties, we find that reversal is required by the law and evidence.

We find in Proposition I that the trial court erred in failing to excuse a biased juror for cause. We find in Proposition II that the trial court erred in not making specific findings regarding the reliability of the victims’ statements pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 2803.1, and that Officer Reddick impermissibly vouched for the victims’ credibility. We find in Proposition III that the evidence was sufficient. We find in Proposition IV that the errors in Propositions I and II require that Dodson’s convictions and sentences must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Decision

The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

JOHN G. CAMP
109 NORTH GRAND
ENID, OKLAHOMA 73701

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

JAMES L. HANKINS
HANKINS LAW OFFICE
119 N. ROBINSON, SUITE 320
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

STEFANIE HAMPTON
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
MIKE FIELDS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS

KEELEY L. HARRIS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE
ENID, OKLAHOMA 73701

ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: CHAPEL, P. J.
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS
C. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
A. JOHNSON, J.: CONCUR
LEWIS, J.: CONCUR IN RESULTS

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114
2. Rule 3.4(F)(2), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (2006)
3. Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2803.1
4. Warner v. State, 29 P.3d 569, 572 (Okl.Cr.2001)
5. F.D.W. v. State, 80 P.3d 503, 504 (Okl.Cr.2003)
6. Lawrence v. State, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177 (Okl.Cr.1990)
7. Peninger v. State, 721 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Okl.Cr.1986)
8. Bernay v. State, 989 P.2d 998, 1008 (Okl.Cr.1999)
9. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2006)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1114 (2001) - First Degree Rape
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2803.1 (2001) - Child Hearsay

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:

• Warner v. State, 29 P.3d 569, 572 (Okl.Cr.2001)
• F.D.W. v. State, 80 P.3d 503, 504 (Okl.Cr.2003)
• Lawrence v. State, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177 (Okl.Cr.1990)
• Peninger v. State, 721 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Okl.Cr.1986)
• Bernay v. State, 989 P.2d 998, 1008 (Okl.Cr.1999)