Court Opinion

ID: 9585341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:59:23.963084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:53.646538
License: Public Domain

LUMPKIN, Judge,
concurs in result.
¶ 1 I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the judgments and sentences in these cases. However, I disagree with the Court’s analysis as it relates to 12 O.S.Supp.1995, § 2803.1.
¶ 2 This Court has previously found the use of “manufactured hearsay”, which was created pursuant to the procedures set out in 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 752, to be unconstitutional. See Burke v. State, 1991 OK CR 116, 820 P.2d 1344, cert. denied, 504 U.S. 973, 112 S.Ct. 2940, 119 L.Ed.2d 565 (1992). As I stated in my separate writing in Burke,
The issue in this case requires the Court to review 22 O.S.Supp.1986, § 752 and 12 O.S.Supp.1986, § 2803.1. Section 2803.1 is the enactment of a specialized hearsay exception within the Oklahoma Evidence Code. Section 752, in effect, enacts a procedure for manufacturing hearsay testimony without the right of confrontation which was afforded in Section 753. If Section 752 could withstand constitutional scrutiny it would potentially subvert the protections provided in Section 753 as applied in Ship-man. It would in effect be an ex parte deposition which could deny persons charged with a crime the right of confrontation of their accusers.
Id. at 1350. (Lumpkin, V.P.J. specially concurring). I do not believe this Court should interpret 12 O.S.Supp.1995, § 2803.1 in such a manner as to condone a procedure we determined unconstitutional in Burke.
¶3 In this case, the video, while an attempt to elicit a statement from this three and one-half (31/2 ) year old girl, was in fact *8a documenting of her role-playing and acting out with anatomically correct dolls. It is truly disturbing that degenerate activities on behalf of the child’s parents apparently caused her to act out with the dolls the sexual acts she had been accustomed to seeing in her home. However, it is an activity which definitely would not have been allowed in the courtroom, especially when we must note those individuals in attendance with the child victim allowed her to undress the anatomically correct dolls and then completely undress herself and in her state of nakedness, proceed to act out sexual acts before the camera.
¶ 4 In Bartell v. State, 881 P.2d 92, 99-100 (Okl.Cr.1994) Court set out the analysis for determining whether the use of a statement taken under Section 752 and played to the jury could be harmless error. In Bartell, the child victim testified relating the events of the offense during trial and the interview taped pursuant to Section 752 was played. That same analysis is applied in this case. While the child victim was not called to testify in this case, the trial judge determined she was available. In light of the substantial third party testimony establishing the commission of this offense by the appellants, I would find the use of the video tape by the State to be harmless under the Bartell analysis. While the tape was admitted in violation of our decision in Burke, its use by experts in their evaluation and as a basis for the forming of their opinion was not error. However, as we set out in Davenport v. State, 806 P.2d 655, 659 (Okl.Cr.1991), the expert’s scope of testimony is to lay out for the trier of fact the nature and criteria for determining whether or not sexual abuse had occurred.
¶ 5 I disagree with the Court’s interpretation that the video tapé was admissible pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.1995, § 2803.1. Section 2803.1 was originally codified by Laws 1984, c. 8, § 1, Emergency Effect March 12, 1984. Subsequently, it was amended by Law 1986, c. 87, § 1, Operative July 1, 1986. Section 752 was enacted by Laws 1986, c. 87, § 4, Operative July 1, 1986. Section 752 specifically dealt with the subject of the admissibility of a recorded statement of a child twelve (12) years of age or younger, while Section 2808.1 addressed statements of children twelve (12) years or younger describing acts of physical abuse or sexual contact. Since Section 752 specifically dealt with the admissibility of recorded statements, I would find it logical to interpret Section 2803.1 as not having applicability to recorded statements. To attempt to expand Section 2803.1 to include that which has been found unconstitutional in Burke, is to dilute the credibility of past decisions of this Court. Therefore, we should be consistent with the analysis set out in Burke and apply the methodology described in Bartell to find the error which was created by the admission of this video tape to be harmless. I find the guilt of the Appellants conclusively proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the other admissible evidence presented during the course of the trial and find it did not impact the verdict of guilt in these cases.