|
|
|
Jamie Cruz v. State,
No. F-2007-200 (Okl.Cr., June 5, 2008) (unpublished): After Formers: Cruz was convicted in Oklahoma County of two counts of Lew Acts and sentenced to LWOP. The Court addressed several interesting issues. First, trial counsel filed late a motion to suppress the admissions of Cruz and the trial court, the Hon. Twyla Mason Gray, declined to consider the motion on the merits (it is unclear from the opinion whether the motion was re-urged at trial). The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and refusing to consider the motion to suppress (ugh) In this posture, Cruz had to present the suppression issue via an IAC claim. The basis for the motion was that Cruz was on probation (a suspended sentence) for other sex crimes at the time of the new crimes, and part of his probation included mandatory sex offender treatment counseling which included a polygraph. Cruz failed the polygraph, mad admissions about the new crimes, and was prosecuted. The Court ultimately held that there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because Cruz was not advised specifically that if he invoked his right to remain silent, he would be penalized (only that he would be considered a "program failure" and a report would be filed with the DA and the judge would decide the matter). Second, Cruz argued that portions of videotaped interviews that mentioned the polygraph results should not have been redacted. The Court found no error because polygraph results are not admissible for any purpose---even when the parties stipulate per Wilson v. State, 1981 OK CR 9, para. 2, 624 P.2d 80, 81. Third, the Court found no error in the trial court refusing to disallow the State from referring to the complaining witness as "the victim." Fourth, the trial court's imposition of a 30-minute time period to conduct voir dire was not an abuse of discretion. Finally, the State enhanced the sentence to LWOP under 21 O.S. 51.1a. The Court held that the most recent amendments to 21 O.S. 1123(A) directed that enhancement must be under the more specific statute; thus, the crimes were punishable by 1-20, not mandatory LWOP. REMANDED for RESENTENCING.
|
|
|
