State Of Oklahoma v Curt Edward Carson

SR-2013-1187

Filed: Dec. 12, 2014

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: State Of Oklahoma

Summary

Curt Edward Carson appealed his conviction for lewd molestation. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. Judges Smith, Lumpkin, and Johnson agreed with the decision, while there was no dissent.

Decision

The order of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was there an error in the district court's finding that the Rape Shield statute was not applicable?
• Did the district court err in allowing evidence to be presented to the jury regarding the victim's abuse by a different perpetrator other than the accused?
• Should the appellate court review the district court's application of the Rape Shield statute de novo?
• Did the State meet its burden in challenging the evidentiary ruling by including relevant trial transcripts?
• Was there an abuse of discretion by the trial court in its evidentiary rulings?

Findings

• the district court did not err in its application of the Rape Shield statute
• the State failed to show an abuse of discretion
• the order of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED

SR-2013-1187

Dec. 12, 2014

State Of Oklahoma

Appellant

v

Curt Edward Carson

Appellee

SUMMARY OPINION

LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE:

Appellant, State of Oklahoma, appeals a question of law reserved in connection with evidentiary rulings of the district court in State v. Carson, Tulsa County Case No. CF-2010-2777. Appellee Carson was charged with six counts of lewd molestation. The jury acquitted Appellee on three counts and failed to reach a verdict on three others, which remain pending. The Court has jurisdiction of the question reserved following the judgments of acquittal. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053 (3).

After extensive pre-trial hearings, the district court ruled that Appellee could cross-examine the complaining witness or otherwise introduce evidence concerning his prior statements regarding sexual molestation committed by another perpetrator. The State objected that this evidence was inadmissible under the Rape Shield statute, 12 O.S.2011, § 2412. The trial court apparently allowed the defense inquiry at trial. The State appeals the following question reserved:

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN FINDING THAT THE RAPE SHIELD STATUTE WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND WHEN ALLOWING EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY REGARDING THE VICTIM’S ABUSE BY A DIFFERENT PERPETRATOR OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED.

The admission or exclusion of evidence is ordinarily discretionary and will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous or manifestly unreasonable. Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9, ¶ 72, 155 P.3d 796, 813. The State argues that the Court should review de novo the district court’s application of the Rape Shield statute as a question of law. We decline this suggestion. Virtually every ruling on the admissibility of evidence at trial includes an inherently related determination that an evidence rule or rules govern admissibility in a particular way, or they do not. Deference to the primacy of a trial court’s determination of these questions, and the complex considerations affecting evidentiary rulings, counsel that appellate review ordinarily remain limited to abuse of discretion.

Appellee argues that the State has failed to carry its burden by not including relevant trial transcripts. We agree. The record reflects that the trial court considered the issue carefully before trial, and its ruling is presumed correct. Thornsberry v. State, 1912 OK CR 383, 126 P. 590 (the presumption is that the trial was regular and fair; the complaining party must show it was erroneous). We will not find error with such a limited view of the context in which the testimony was admitted. Cardenas v. State, 1985 OK CR 21, 695 P.2d 876 (finding appellant failed in his burden to show error in the exclusion of preliminary hearing testimony by omitting transcript of the proposed evidence); Williams v. State, 1988 OK CR 221, 762 P.2d 983 (finding record without voir dire could not establish error in trial court’s Batson findings).

The State has not shown an abuse of discretion. The reserved question is denied.

DECISION

The order of the District Court of Tulsa County is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2014), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

AN APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY
THE HONORABLE JAMES M. CAPUTO, DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL
APPEARANCES ON APPEAL

CLARK O. BREWSTER
ROBERT R. NIGH
CORBIN C. BREWSTER
RYAN A. MCDONALD

2617 E. 21ST ST.
TULSA, OK 74114

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

SARAH MCAMIS
BEN FU
TRAVIS HORTON

500 S. DENVER, STE 900
TULSA, OK 74103

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

OPINION BY LEWIS, P.J.
SMITH, J.: Concurs in Results
LUMPKIN, J.: Concurs
JOHNSON, J.: Concurs

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. 22 O.S.2011, § 1053 (3)
2. 12 O.S.2011, § 2412
3. Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9, I 72, 155 P.3d 796, 813
4. Thornsberry v. State, 1912 OK CR 383, 126 P. 590
5. Cardenas v. State, 1985 OK CR 21, 695 P.2d 876
6. Williams v. State, 1988 OK CR 221, 762 P.2d 983

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1053 (2011) - Jurisdiction in criminal appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2412 (2011) - Rape Shield statute
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Lewd molestation
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2014) - Rules of the 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:

• Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9, I 72, 155 P.3d 796, 813
• Thornsberry v. State, 1912 OK CR 383, 126 P. 590
• Cardenas v. State, 1985 OK CR 21, 695 P.2d 876
• Williams v. State, 1988 OK CR 221, 762 P.2d 983