Reupert v. State

• Citation: 1997 OK CR 65,947 P.2d 198
• Decision Date: 21 October 1997
• Docket Number: No. F-96-1337,F-96-1337
• Parties: 1997 OK CR 65 Willard Leslie REUPERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 198

947 P.2d 198

1997 OK CR 65

Willard Leslie REUPERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-96-1337.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 21, 1997.

Timothy R. Beebe, Enid, Marvin P. Ludlum, Norman, for Defendant at trial.

E. Clyde Kirk, James A. Belote, Stipe Law Firm, Oklahoma City, for Appellant on appeal.

Richard Smotherman, Connie Pope, Asst. Dist. Attys., Guthrie, for the State at trial.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, James F. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for Appellee on appeal.

SUMMARY OPINION

CHAPEL, Presiding Judge.

Willard Leslie Reupert was tried by jury and convicted of Count II, Rape in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1114(A)(1); Counts III and IV, Rape by Instrumentation in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1114(A)(5); and Count V, Forcible Oral Sodomy in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 888(B)(1), in the District Court of Logan County, Case No. CF-94-123. ¹ In accordance with the jury's recommendation the Honorable Donald L. Worthington sentenced Reupert to thirty years imprisonment (Count II); twenty-five years imprisonment (Count III); twenty-five years imprisonment (Count IV); and twenty years imprisonment (Count V). Reupert has perfected his appeal of these convictions.

Reupert raises the following eight propositions of error in support of his appeal:

I. The trial court allowed into evidence out of court statements made by a complaining witness who was over the age of twelve when she testified, under 12 O.S. § 2803.1. This testimony included expert testimony vouching for the credibility of D.T., without any limiting instruction. Did these out of court statements and expert opinion deny Reupert his right to a fair trial?;

II. Reupert was denied his right to due process of law by the Prosecution's unlawful abuse of the criminal discovery and preliminary examination statutes;

III. Reupert was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel;

IV. The trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect as to which alleged acts of sexual intercourse it relied upon for conviction and in failing to properly instruct the jury;

V. The trial court erred in not requiring the State to elect which incidents of rape by instrumentation it relied upon for conviction in Count 3 of the information and in failing to properly instruct the jury;

VI. The trial court erred in denying Reupert's demurrer to the evidence as to Count 5;

VII. The trial court erred in not requiring the prosecution to elect which incident of rape by instrumentation (in Count IV) it relied upon for conviction; and

VIII. Reupert was denied his right to a fair trial and received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to object to a definition of reasonable doubt.

After thorough consideration of the entire record before us on appeal including the original record, transcripts, briefs and exhibits of the parties, we find that neither reversal nor modification is required under the law and evidence and affirm. However, we discuss a discovery error of first impression raised in Proposition II.

In Proposition II Reupert claims that the State disregarded discovery statutes. Shortly before trial the State applied for subpoenas to issue to all the defense witnesses under 22 O.S.1991, § 258(2nd). No notice was given. Reupert filed a Motion for Protective Order on September 10, claiming the State was violating the letter and spirit of the Discovery Code. In a September 11 hearing, bench warrants were issued but later recalled. Reupert was neither present nor represented at that hearing. Although the record reflects no ruling on Reupert's Motion, the trial court's action in issuing bench warrants suggests the Motion was denied.

The State should not have subpoenaed Reupert's witnesses under 22 O.S.1991, § 258(2nd). Section 258 is titled "Preliminary examinations and proceedings thereon." The statute discusses requirements for testimony, filing, and the effect of grand juries on preliminary Informations in felony cases. Section 258(1st) states that the defendant must be present and have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and upon request all testimony must be reduced to writing and filed with the district court. Section 258(2nd) states with court approval the district attorney may issue subpoenas and call witnesses to testify, confining the testimony to "some" felony committed against the state statutes and triable in that county. Significantly, no notice to the defendant is required before issuing these subpoenas and the defendant need not be present during questioning. The fact that the defendant need not be present or have the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses indicates that the depositions are intended as discovery tools and cannot be used as preliminary hearing testimony, since they do not meet the requirements in Section 258(1st). Section 258(3rd) provides that no preliminary Information shall be filed without the consent or endorsement of the district attorney, with exceptions. Section 258(4th) provides that convening a grand jury does not negate the district attorney's right to file complaints and Informations, or conduct preliminary hearings, unless otherwise ordered. Taken as a whole Section 258 authorizes the district attorney to conduct examinations and file Informations in conjunction with preliminary hearing proceedings, and does not apply after a defendant is bound over.

This Court has construed Section 258(2nd) in two cases. In Isaacs v. District Court of Oklahoma County ² we held the section prohibits issuance of investigative subpoenas before an indictment or Information is filed. In Isaacs prosecutors sought to issue subpoenas to investigate whether criminal charges should be filed. We considered Section 258 in conjunction with Title 22, Chapter 3, covering jurisdiction and venue, and determined that § 258(2nd) does not apply where charges have not been filed. ³ In Coulter v. State ⁴ the crime occurred in June 1982, the defendant was arrested in October 1983, and the defendant complained because a subpoena was issued under Section 258 to Southwestern Bell Telephone in February 1983. The opinion does not indicate when the Information or indictment was filed. Without analysis, this Court merely found the subpoena was proper because a felony case was "in existence" before the subpoena was issued, it was signed by a district judge, and the crimes were triable in the county. The ambiguity concerning the Information and lack of legal reasoning in Coulter suggest that the Court may not have reached the same result using an Isaacs analysis; in any case, Coulter sheds no light on the proper use of § 258(2nd).

These cases neither contradict our summary of Section 258 above nor address the issue presented here. Coulter appears to be concerned with an investigatory subpoena, and Isaacs entirely focused on when an investigatory subpoena is appropriate. In contrast, the prosecutor here used § 258(2nd) to subpoena defense witnesses only a few weeks before trial, after receiving the defense witness list and summary of testimony through discovery. The prosecutor used a statute designed to facilitate charging a defendant as a tool to depose known defense witnesses well after discovery had commenced. Isaacs simply does not apply in this situation. Coulter parrots the language of the statute without analysis, but as it appears to focus only on pre-arrest investigative subpoenas any holding it may contain also does not apply.

In issuing subpoenas for defense witnesses under Section 258 the State violated the Oklahoma Code of Criminal Procedure. The Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides for conditional examination of witnesses by deposition:

When a defendant has been held to answer a charge for a public offense, the defendant Subsequent sections mandate the procedures and requirements for conditional examination. Either party may request a conditional examination when, after preliminary hearing, a witness refuses an interview with opposing counsel. ⁵ Application must be made to the court with a supporting affidavit and the applying party must give five days notice to counsel for the opposing party. ⁶ The court may order a conditional examination to be taken before a magistrate or certified court reporter, with notice to the opposing party, and the defendant must be present at any examination unless his presence is waived by both parties. ⁷ Sections 761 et seq. apply after a defendant has been bound over for trial.

or the State of Oklahoma may either before or after indictment or information, have witnesses examined conditionally on his behalf as prescribed in this article, and not otherwise. [22 O.S.Supp.1994, § 761, emphasis added.]

These statutes were amended at the same time the Criminal Discovery Code ⁸ was promulgated. Nothing in the Discovery Code speaks to conditional examination of witnesses by deposition, and it is clear the Legislature intended §§ 761 et seq. to be used in conjunction with the Discovery Code. The Legislature, which we presume not to do a vain thing, specifically amended the statutes allowing either party in a criminal case to conditionally examine witnesses who are ill or leaving the state, or who did not have the opportunity to testify for the defendant before preliminary hearing was terminated, and who refuse to speak to counsel. ⁹ If this Court expands § 258(2nd) to allow similar examination of defense witnesses without the safeguards required under §§ 761 et seq., the latter statutes become pointless. The Legislature could have amended § 258(2nd) to limit its scope beyond our decisions in Coulter and Isaacs. However, as neither Coulter nor Isaacs speak to the issue before this Court, the Legislature's failure to further amend § 258(2nd) indicates nothing. We do not hold that the amended statutes governing conditional examination of witnesses repeal § 258(2nd) by implication...