William Harold Pittman v State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-194
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: State of Oklahoma
Summary
William Harold Pittman appealed his conviction for sexual abuse of a child under twelve. Conviction and sentence were upheld, with thirty years for each count running consecutively. Judge Kuehn dissented.
Decision
The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are 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 appellant's rights to due process and a fair trial by admitting evidence relating to the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)?
- Did the trial court err in admitting expert testimony regarding the CSAAS evidence and its relevance and scientific reliability?
- Should this Court reassess the scientific reliability of the CSAAS evidence?
- Was the admission of CSAAS testimony harmful error that affected the outcome of the trial?
Findings
- the court did not err in admitting expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS)
- the evidence was relevant and admissible to explain the victim's delay in disclosing the abuse as well as her recantation
- the trial court was not required to reassess the reliability of CSAAS evidence
- the admission of CSAAS testimony was not considered harmful error
- Appellant's proposition of error is denied
- the Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are AFFIRMED
F-2018-194
Sep. 12, 2019
William Harold Pittman
Appellantv
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
HUDSON, JUDGE: Appellant, William Harold Pittman, was tried and convicted by jury in Caddo County District Court, Case No. CF-2015-285, of Count 1: Sexual Abuse-Child Under Twelve, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F); and Count 2: Child Sexual Abuse, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E). The jury recommended punishment of thirty years imprisonment on each count. The Honorable Wyatt Hill, Associate District Judge, presided at trial and sentenced Pittman in accordance with the jury’s verdicts. Judge Hill ordered both sentences to run consecutively. The court also imposed various costs and fees. Pittman now appeals, raising the following proposition of error before this Court:
I. THE COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY ADMITTING EVIDENCE AS TO THE ALLEGED CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE ACCOMMODATION SYNDROME.
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 Judgments and Sentences are AFFIRMED.
Proposition I: Appellant argues the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). Appellant contends the CSAAS evidence was irrelevant as well as inadmissible because there was not sufficient evidence presented to prove the syndrome’s reliability. He further asserts this Court should reassess its position that CSAAS evidence is scientifically reliable. The [a]dmissibility of expert evidence is within the trial court’s discretion. Day v. State, 2013 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 303 P.3d 291, 295. However, [w]hen a specific objection is raised at trial, this Court will not entertain a different objection on appeal. Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, ¶ 27, 980 P.2d 1081, 1094. Appellant did not object to the admission of the CSAAS evidence based on relevance or its scientific reliability, as he now argues on appeal. He has thus waived all but plain error review of the admission of the expert testimony on CSAAS. Id. To be entitled to relief for plain error, an appellant must show: (1) the existence of an actual error (i.e., deviation from a legal rule); (2) that the error is plain or obvious; and (3) that the error affected his substantial rights, meaning the error affected the outcome of the proceeding. Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923. See also Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 11, 23, 876 P.2d 690, 694, 695, 698. We will correct plain error only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice. Stewart v. State, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 12, 372 P.3d 508, 511. No error, plain or otherwise, has been demonstrated by Appellant.
This Court first accepted CSAAS as reliable scientific evidence in Davenport v. State, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 19, 806 P.2d 655, 660. CSAAS evidence is admissible in the State’s case-in-chief after the child testifies, to explain why a child victim retracted or recanted a statement, after doing so on the stand, or to explain a long delay in disclosing sexual abuse. Id., 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 18-19, 806 P.2d at 659-60. Appellant first complains the majority of the CSAAS evidence was irrelevant under the standard of admission announced in Davenport, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 18, 806 P.2d at 659. An examination of the record discloses that the challenged evidence fell within parameters of Davenport and was relevant to explain the victim’s delay in disclosing the abuse as well as her recantation immediately following her initial disclosure. See Id., 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 18-19, 806 P.2d at 659-60. There is no error, plain or otherwise.
Appellant next complains that the record is devoid of any data that the trial court judge could have relied upon to determine that the syndrome is actually generally accepted in the scientific community. Appellant discounts the fact that this Court accepted CSAAS as reliable scientific evidence in Davenport. Id., 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 19, 806 P.2d at 660. Thus, the trial court was not required to act as a gatekeeper in this case to ensure the reliability and relevancy of the CSAAS testimony. See, e.g., Day, 2013 OK CR 8, ¶ 6-7, 303 P.3d at 295-96 (denial of a Daubert hearing on Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) was not error because SBS is not a novel scientific theory). He argues nonetheless that this Court should reassess its position that CSAAS evidence is scientifically reliable. Appellant argues the syndrome is no longer considered reliable science that falls within the parameters of 12 O.S.2011, § 2702, and asks this Court to reassess the scientific underpinnings of CSAAS evidence. Having reviewed Appellant’s argument, we are unpersuaded and decline Appellant’s invitation to revisit this issue.
Lastly, Appellant claims that the admission of the CSAAS testimony cannot be considered harmless error because it bolstered the testimony of the victim as well as other witnesses. However, the fact that such evidence [was] incidentally corroborative [did] not render it inadmissible, since most expert testimony, in and of itself, tends to show that another witness either is or is not telling the truth. Davenport, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 16, 806 P.2d at 659. Moreover, given that the challenged evidence fell within parameters of Davenport, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 19, 806 P.2d at 660, and the jurors were properly instructed on their consideration of this evidence, Appellant fails to demonstrate any entitlement to plain error relief.
Finding no error, actual or otherwise, occurred in the admission of the challenged CSAAS evidence, Appellant’s sole proposition of error is denied.
DECISION
The Judgments and Sentences of the District Court are 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.
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(F)
- 21 O.S.Supp.2014, § 843.5(E)
- Day v. State, 2013 OK CR 8, ¶ 4, 303 P.3d 291, 295.
- Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, ¶ 27, 980 P.2d 1081, 1094.
- Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923.
- Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 11, 876 P.2d 690, 694, 695, 698.
- Stewart v. State, 2016 OK CR 9, ¶ 12, 372 P.3d 508, 511.
- Davenport v. State, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 19, 806 P.2d 655, 660.
- Davenport v. State, 1991 OK CR 14, ¶ 18-19, 806 P.2d at 659-60.
- 12 O.S.2011, § 2702.
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(F) - Sexual Abuse of a Child Under Twelve
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 843.5(E) - Child Sexual Abuse
- Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2702 - Admissibility of Expert Testimony
- Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 - 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:
- Day v. State, 2013 OK CR 8, I 4, 303 P.3d 291, 295.
- Short v. State, 1999 OK CR 15, I 27, 980 P. 2d 1081, 1094.
- Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, IT 38, 139 P.3d 907, 923.
- Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, 99 11, 23, 876 P.2d 690, 694, 695, 698.
- Stewart v. State, 2016 OK CR 9, IT 12, 372 P.3d 508, 511.
- Davenport v. State, 1991 OK CR 14, I 19, 806 P.2d 655, 660.