James Edward Haskin, Jr. v State Of Oklahoma

F-2017-444

Filed: May 9, 2019

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

James Edward Haskin, Jr. appealed his conviction for Child Neglect and Child Sexual Abuse. The court affirmed his conviction and sentenced him to a total of 295 years in prison. Judge Lewis, Judge Kuehn, Judge Lumpkin, and Judge Rowland all agreed with the decision, while Judge Haskin raised several issues regarding the trial but the court found no errors that would change the outcome.

Decision

The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there a violation of the Fourth Amendment concerning the admission of testimony about Appellant's property?
• Did the trial court err by admitting testimony taken in violation of Appellant's Fifth Amendment rights?
• Was there reversible error due to the admission of irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence?
• Did the trial court allow the State to display selective portions of witness testimony in a way that constituted a continuous closing argument and violated the rule on witness sequestration?
• Did the trial court's voir dire process violate Appellant's rights protected by the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments?
• Was the admission of testimony regarding Appellant's prior bad acts irrelevant and highly prejudicial, thereby violating his right to a fair trial?
• Did the accumulation of errors infect the trial and sentencing proceedings, denying Appellant effective assistance of counsel and due process?

Findings

• the court erred
• evidence was not sufficient
• evidence was not sufficient
• the court erred
• the court erred
• evidence was not sufficient
• the court erred

F-2017-444

May 9, 2019

James Edward Haskin, Jr.

Appellant

v

State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, James Edward Haskin, Jr., was tried and convicted at a jury trial in LeFlore County District Court, Case No. CF-2011-388, of nine (9) counts of Child Neglect (Counts 1-9), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(C) and three (3) counts of Child Sexual Abuse (Counts 10-12), in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(E). The jury recommended sentences of imprisonment of ten (10) years each on Counts 1-9; fifty (50) years imprisonment on Count 10; sixty (60) years imprisonment on Count 11; and forty-five (45) years imprisonment on Count 12. The Honorable Jonathan K. Sullivan, District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdicts and imposed various costs and fees. Judge Sullivan also ordered the sentences on all twelve counts to run consecutively.

Haskin now appeals, raising seven (7) propositions of error before this Court:

I. THE TRIAL COURT’S ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING APPELLANT’S PROPERTY VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THUS THE EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AT TRIAL COURT;

II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR BY ADMITTING TESTIMONY BY APPELLANT AND SUBSEQUENT EVIDENCE WHICH WAS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION;

III. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY ADMITTING IRRELEVANT AND HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION;

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO DISPLAY SELECTIVE PORTIONS OF CERTAIN WITNESSES’ TESTIMONY THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BECAUSE IT OVEREMPHASIZED THAT TESTIMONY, CONSTITUTED A CONTINUOUS CLOSING ARGUMENT, AND VIOLATED THE RULE OF SEQUESTRATION OF WITNESSES;

V. THE TRIAL COURT’S VOIR DIRE PROCESS VIOLATED MR. GLOSSIP’S [SIC] RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION;

VI. THE TRIAL COURT’S ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY CONCERNING APPELLANT’S PRIOR BAD ACTS WAS NOT ONLY IRRELEVANT, BUT HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AND VIOLATED [SIC] APPELLANT A FAIR TRIAL; and

VII. THE ACCUMULATION OF ERRORS SO INFECTED THE TRIAL AND SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS WITH UNFAIRNESS THAT MR. GLOSSIP [SIC] WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DUE PROCESS AND A RELIABLE SENTENCING PROCEEDING IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH, EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal, including the original record, transcripts, exhibits and the parties’ briefs, we find that no relief is required under the law and evidence. Appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

**Proposition I.** Investigator Thompson’s return to Appellant’s property on October 21, 2011, was wholly reasonable considering Appellant’s cooperation earlier in the day in allowing Thompson and his colleagues to inspect the premises and in agreeing to bring the children to Poteau for interviews. The record shows Appellant never appeared with the children in Poteau as agreed prompting Thompson to return to the Haskin residence the afternoon of October 21st. The portion of the record cited by Appellant shows that Investigator Thompson went up Appellant’s driveway to the area he had visited earlier in the day with Appellant’s permission. The Supreme Court has held that a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is ‘no more than any private citizen might do. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1416, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013) (quoting Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 469, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1862, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)). The record shows that is roughly all Investigator Thompson did on his return trip to Appellant’s residence. This is not a case where Investigator Thompson gained access to the property by violating privacy rights that are protected by the Fourth Amendment. There was thus no abuse of discretion from the admission of this evidence. See Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶ 29, 400 P. 3d 834, 847 (the admission of evidence is within the trial court’s discretion). Proposition I is denied.

**Propositions II, III, V and VI.** Appellant provides no citations to the record in these propositions showing where the alleged errors are located. Appellant has therefore waived review of these claims on appeal. Rule 3.5(A)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019); Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7, ¶ 41, 231 P.3d 1156, 1169-70. Propositions II, III, V and VI are denied.

**Proposition IV.** Appellant fails to show that the State’s use at trial of State’s Exhibit 122, a photographic exhibit of a stop sign bearing some graffiti, deprived him of a fundamentally fair trial in violation of due process. Proposition IV is denied.

**Proposition VII.** Relief is denied for alleged cumulative error. Bivens v. State, 2018 OK CR 33, ¶ 35, 431 P.3d 985, 996. Proposition VII is denied.

DECISION
The Judgment and Sentence of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2019), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(C)
2. 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(E)
3. Haskin U. State, No. C-2013-204, slip op. (Okl. Cr. Feb. 19, 2014) (unpublished).
4. 21 O.S.Supp. 2015, § 13.1(14)
5. Florida U. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1416, 185 L. Ed. 2d 495 (2013)
6. Kentucky U. King, 563 U.S. 452, 469, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1862, 179 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2011)
7. Bosse U. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶ 29, 400 P. 3d 834, 847.
8. Rule 3.5(A)(5), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2019)
9. Logsdon U. State, 2010 OK CR 7, ¶ 41, 231 P.3d 1156, 1169-70.
10. Bivens U. State, 2018 OK CR 33, ¶ 35, 431 P.3d 985, 996.

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(C) - Child Neglect
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(E) - Child Sexual Abuse
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1(14) - Parole Eligibility
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.5(A)(5) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

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:

No case citations found.