Jimmy Dale Luttrell v The State Of Oklahoma

M-2007-62

Filed: Jan. 1, 2008

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: The State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Jimmy Dale Luttrell appealed his conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child. His conviction and sentence were reversed. Judge Lumpkin, Judge C. Johnson, Judge Chapel, and Judge Lewis agreed with the decision, while Judge N dissented.

Decision

Appellant's Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CM-2006-645 in the District Court of Wagoner County is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. 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 filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was the State's evidence sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child?
• Did the trial court err in sustaining the hearsay objection, thus excluding evidence that could have established the elements of the crime?
• Could the absence of the victim's testimony, alongside the exclusion of her statements, preclude a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
• Does double jeopardy prevent a second trial given the insufficiency of evidence leading to the reversal of the conviction?

Findings

• the evidence was not sufficient to support Appellant's conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child
• Appellant's Judgment and Sentence is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss

M-2007-62

Jan. 1, 2008

Jimmy Dale Luttrell

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

A. JOHNSON, JUDGE:

Appellant appeals from his misdemeanor Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CM-2006-645 in the District Court of Wagoner County. Appellant was convicted in a non-jury trial, conducted before the Honorable David Nelson, Special Judge, of Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child, and was sentenced to a term of one year in the Wagoner County Jail, with the sentence suspended, plus a fine of $250.00 and costs of $250.90.

On appeal, Appellant raises one proposition of error claiming the State’s evidence was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for Domestic Assault and Battery in the Presence of a Minor Child. In this case, Appellant’s wife, the victim of the alleged assault and battery, was called as a witness but did not appear or testify at the trial. Because the wife did not testify and because Judge Nelson sustained the hearsay objection and did not allow the police officer to testify about what the wife told him at the scene or introduce her written statement, there was no evidence admitted at trial, not even hearsay evidence, to establish what actually happened at the time of the alleged assault and battery, or to connect the Appellant directly to the assault and battery. Thus, as Appellant argues, all of the essential elements of the crime could not have been established, especially not beyond a reasonable doubt. Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 95, 90 P.2d 556, 557-58; see also Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 17, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04.

The State cites a not for publication opinion claiming this Court has found that even in the absence of the victim’s testimony, a rational trier of fact can determine that a defendant has committed the offense of Domestic Abuse / Assault and Battery. Littlesun v. State, No. F-2005-53 (Okl.Cr. January 27, 2006). Contrary to the State’s argument, however, the victim in Littlesun did testify and her out-of-court statements were admitted, thus there was evidence which could establish all essential elements of the crime. Because Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence is being reversed based upon insufficiency of the evidence presented at his trial to sustain guilt, double jeopardy precludes a second trial and this case must be remanded with instructions to dismiss. See Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).

DECISION

Appellant’s Judgment and Sentence in Case No. CM-2006-645 in the District Court of Wagoner County is REVERSED and REMANDED to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. 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 filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WAGONER COUNTY
THE HONORABLE DAVID NELSON, SPECIAL JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
BEN STEVEN CHAPMAN
Attorney at Law
320 East Cherokee Street
Wagoner, OK 74467
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL
BEN STEVEN CHAPMAN
Attorney at Law
320 East Cherokee Street
Wagoner, OK 74467
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

GRANT HUSKEY
Assistant District Attorney
307 East Cherokee Street
Wagoner, OK 74467
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

W. A. DREW EDMONDSON
Attorney General of Oklahoma
STEPHANIE D. JACKSON
Assistant Attorney General
313 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73015
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

OPINION BY: A. JOHNSON, J.
LUMPKIN, P.J.: Concur in results
C. JOHNSON, V.P.J.: Concur
CHAPEL, J.: Concur
LEWIS, J.: Concur

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 95, 90 P.2d 556, 557-58
2. Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 17, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
3. Littlesun v. State, No. F-2005-53 (Okl.Cr. January 27, 2006)
4. Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)
5. Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2007)

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

No Oklahoma statutes found.

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:

• Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, 95, 90 P.2d 556, 557-58
• Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132, 17, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04
• Littlesun v. State, No. F-2005-53 (Okl.Cr. January 27, 2006)
• Burks v. U.S., 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)