Charles Causey v The State Of Oklahoma

F-2006-991

Filed: Jun. 29, 2007

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Charles Causey appealed his conviction for Lewd Molestation. Conviction and sentence: fifteen (15) years imprisonment. Judge C. Johnson dissented.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• was there an error in the jury instruction regarding the 85% sentence for lewd molestation?
• did the trial court improperly admit child hearsay violating Causey's constitutional rights?
• was Causey denied the fundamental right to present a defense?
• did the District Court commit reversible error by giving a flight instruction?
• were there multiple instances of vouching for the credibility of the complaining witness and prosecutorial misconduct that violated Causey's right to a fair trial?
• did the trial court err by allowing the minor complaining witness to testify while holding a doll?
• did Causey receive ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to file a motion to suppress the search of his home?
• did the accumulated trial errors render the proceedings fundamentally unfair in violation of due process?

Findings

• the trial court erred in failing to make a record of any hearing on the admissibility of out-of-court statements by the minor victim
• the State's expert witness erred when she stated that the victim was telling the truth
• Causey's jury should have been instructed he would serve 85% of any sentence imposed for this crime
• the remainder of Causey's propositions are moot
• the Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED

F-2006-991

Jun. 29, 2007

Charles Causey

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

MICHAEL S. RICHIE CHAPEL, JUDGE:

Charles Causey was tried by jury and convicted of Lewd Molestation in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 1123, in the District Court of McCurtain County, Case No. CF-2004-383. In accordance with the jury’s recommendation the Honorable Gary L. Brock sentenced Causey to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. Causey appeals from this conviction and sentence.

Causey raises eight propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. The sentence must be modified because neither defense counsel, the trial court, nor the prosecution attempted to instruct the jury pursuant to Anderson v. State that lewd molestation is an 85% crime;

II. The introduction of child hearsay was allowed by the trial court in non-compliance with this Court’s published authority and resulted in improper vouching for the minor complaining witness in this case in violation of Causey’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Sections 7 and 20 of the Oklahoma Constitution;

III. The trial court denied Causey the fundamental right to present a defense in violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution;

IV. The District Court committed reversible error by giving a flight instruction;

V. Multiple instances of State witnesses vouching for the credibility of the complaining witness and other instances of prosecutorial misconduct violated Causey’s right to a fundamentally fair trial;

VI. The trial court erred when it allowed the minor complaining witness to testify in open court while holding a doll;

VII. Causey received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the search of his home; and

VIII. The accumulated effect of the trial errors in this case rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair in violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and briefs, we find that the law and evidence require reversal. In Proposition II we find that the trial court erred in failing to make a record of any hearing on the admissibility of out-of-court statements by the minor victim, including a finding that the statements were reliable and trustworthy, along with particular facts and circumstances supporting that finding.

We find in Proposition V that the State’s expert witness erred when she stated that the victim was telling the truth. These errors require reversal and remand for a new trial. We find in Proposition I that Causey’s jury should have been instructed he would serve 85% of any sentence imposed for this crime. Given our resolution of the case, this error requires no further relief. We note that any future jury in this case should receive this instruction. The remainder of Causey’s propositions are moot.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is REVERSED and REMANDED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2007), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL

JOHN BOUNDS
P.O. BOX 787
HUGO, OKLAHOMA 74743
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL

JAMES L. HANKINS
117 PARK AVENUE, THIRD FLOOR
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73102
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

W.A. DREW EDMONDSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

LAURIE POLLARD
MARK MATLOFF
JAY SCHNIEDERJAN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
108 N. CENTRAL AVENUE
IDABEL, OKLAHOMA 74745
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA 73105
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

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

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.Supp.2003, § 1123
2. 12 O.S.2001, § 2803.1; F.D.W. U. State, 2003 OK CR 23, 80 P.3d 503, 504.
3. Lawrence U. State, 1990 OK CR 56, 796 P.2d 1176, 1177
4. 21 O.S.2001, § 13.1; Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123 (2003) - Lewd Molestation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2803.1 (2001) - Child Hearsay
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 (2001) - Error in Prosecution

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:

• Anderson v. State, 2006 OK CR 6, 130 P.3d 273
• F.D.W. v. State, 2003 OK CR 23, 80 P.3d 503
• Lawrence v. State, 1990 OK CR 56, 796 P.2d 1176