Jonas Mickey Rawson v The State Of Oklahoma
F-2018-780
Filed: Oct. 17, 2019
Not for publication
Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma
Summary
Jonas Mickey Rawson appealed his conviction for lewd or indecent acts to a child under 16. His conviction and sentence were for life imprisonment on three counts, with the sentences to run consecutively and requiring him to serve 85% before being eligible for parole. Judge Rowland dissented. In this case, Rawson argued that the trial court made a mistake by not giving the jury specific instructions about the actions he was accused of. He claimed the jury needed to know more details about what he was charged with doing. However, the court explained that the jury was given proper instructions that clearly outlined the law and what Rawson did. They determined that the instructions followed the Oklahoma guidelines for such cases and adequately explained the charges without being overly specific. Because of this, the court decided that Rawson's appeal was denied, and the original judgment and sentence were upheld.
Decision
The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE 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 an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to provide specific jury instructions requested by the defendant regarding the charged offenses?
- Did the jury instructions accurately state the applicable law for the crimes charged against the defendant?
- Was the jury adequately informed of the specific acts the defendant was charged with committing against the victim?
- Did the trial court err in not giving further particularized instructions despite the defendant's claims?
Findings
- the court did not err in the jury instructions provided
- the trial court's instructions accurately stated the applicable law
- no abuse of discretion by the trial court was found
- the judgment and sentence is affirmed
F-2018-780
Oct. 17, 2019
Jonas Mickey Rawson
Appellantv
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
v
The State Of Oklahoma
Appellee
SUMMARY OPINION
JOHN D. HADDEN LUMPKIN, JUDGE:
Appellant, Jonas Mickey Rawson, was tried by jury and convicted of: Count 1, Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1123(A)(2); Counts 2 and 3, Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16, in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2), all after Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in the District Court of Lincoln County, Case Number CF-2016-392. The jury recommended as punishment life imprisonment on each count. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly and ordered the sentences to run consecutively to one another. Appellant will be required to serve 85% of his sentences before becoming eligible for parole. 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1.
From this judgment and sentence Appellant appeals. Appellant raises the following single proposition of error in this appeal: The District Court abused its discretion and error occurred when, despite the defendant’s prior provision of requested instruction and objection, the jury did not receive adequate and particularized instruction as to the elements of the specifically charged alleged criminal acts.
After thorough consideration of this proposition and the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, and briefs of the parties, we have determined that under the law and the evidence no relief is warranted. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury with his proffered instructions regarding the crimes charged. Appellant makes no claim that the instructions inaccurately state the applicable law, but contends they should have been more specific. He sought to have the jury instructions for each of the counts specify the exact acts he was charged with having committed against his victim.
Instructions are within the discretion of the trial court. Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, ¶ 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8. Jury [i]nstructions are sufficient where they accurately state the applicable law. Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27, ¶ 19, 426 P.3d 614, 619. We hold the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for the charged crimes must be used if they state the applicable law. Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, ¶ 61, 400 P.3d 834, 856.
The trial court instructed the jury with the uniform jury instructions for the charged crimes pursuant to Instruction No. 4-129, OUJI-CR(2d) as follows:
No person may be convicted of lewd acts with a child under sixteen unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:
Count 1: First, the defendant knowingly and intentionally; Second, looked upon, touched or felt; Third, the body or private parts; Fourth, of a child under sixteen years of age; Fifth, in any lewd or lascivious manner; Sixth, the defendant was at least three years older than the child.
Count 2: First, the defendant knowingly and intentionally; Second, touched or felt; Third, the body or private parts; Fourth, of a child under sixteen years of age; Fifth, in any lewd or lascivious manner; Sixth, the defendant was at least three years older than the child.
Count 3: First, the defendant knowingly and intentionally; Second, touched with sexual devices; Third, the body or private parts; Fourth, of a child under sixteen years of age; Fifth, in any lewd or lascivious manner; Sixth, the defendant was at least three years older than the child.
The words lewd and lascivious have the same meaning and signify conduct which is lustful and which evinces an eagerness for sexual indulgence. The statutory authority for these instructions is found in Section 1123(A)(2) of Title 21. With the exception of the words, with sexual devices after touched in the second element of Count 3, which change defense counsel expressly approved, the trial court’s instructions were the ones applicable to Appellant’s crimes as set forth in the Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions.
The jury was also instructed that Appellant was charged with having committed the crimes specifically as follows:
Count 1: Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16, by knowingly and intentionally touching the private parts of S.Z., a 2-to 3-year old child, on or between April 27, 2013, and November 10, 2014, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma;
Count 2: Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16, by knowingly and intentionally touching and rubbing against the vagina of S.Z. with his penis and inserting his penis into the vagina of S.Z., a 3-year-old child, on or between December 1, 2014, and December 17, 2016, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma;
Count 3: Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16, by knowingly and intentionally touching the private parts of S.Z., a 3-year-old child, by using sexual devices on the vagina of S.Z. on or between December 1, 2014, and December 17, 2016, in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.
This instruction advised the jury of the specific acts Appellant was charged with having committed against S.Z. Appellant does not claim the State failed to prove these elements. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion since the instructions, as a whole, stated the applicable law. Therefore, relief is not warranted. Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, ¶ 22, 424 P.3d 677, 684. Appellant’s sole proposition is denied.
DECISION
The JUDGMENT and SENTENCE 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.
RA
Footnotes:
- 21 O.S.2011, § 1123(A)(2)
- 21 O.S.Supp.2013, § 1123(A)(2)
- 21 O.S.Supp.2015, § 13.1
- Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, I 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8
- Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27, I 19, 426 P.3d 614, 619
- Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, I 61, 400 P.3d 834, 856
- Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, I 22, 424 P.3d 677, 684
Oklahoma Statutes citations:
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123(A)(2) - Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16 (2011)
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1123(A)(2) - Lewd or Indecent Acts to a Child Under 16 (2013)
- Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 13.1 - Parole Eligibility (2015)
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:
- Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29, I 25, 395 P.3d 1, 8.
- Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27, I 19, 426 P.3d 614, 619.
- Bosse v. State, 2017 OK CR 10, I 61, 400 P.3d 834, 856.
- Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24, I 22, 424 P.3d 677, 684.