 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cline v. State10/19/1989
Rehearing Denied December 5, 1989.
CRAIG WILLIAM CLINE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLEE.
An Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Leamon Freeman, District Judge.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Sandra D. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Cindy Foley, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
AFFIRMED.
OPINION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LANE, Vice Presiding Judge.
Craig William Cline, Appellant was tried by jury for the crime of Child Beating, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies (21 O.S. 1981 § 843 [21-843]) in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CRF-87-3848. The jury found Appellant guilty and set punishment at twenty (20) years imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
When her mother brought eighteen-month-old A.M. to the Midwest City Hospital, the baby's top lip was split open and swollen to the point of resembling a duck's bill. Her face and legs were covered with bruises, her buttocks were blackened by bruises and she had nine strap marks on her back. Hospital authorities contacted the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to report this case of suspected child abuse. At trial, DHS employee , Jacklyn Hill, testified the Appellant told her, "Well, I messed up and I don't want her (A.M.'s mother) to get into trouble for what I've done." [Tr. I, 45] Hill also testified that Appellant told her that he "gave her (A.M.) another — some more swats with a belt." [Tr. I, 46] Evidence established A.M.'s mother lived with Appellant and Appellant baby-sat A.M. and her brother during the time A.M. was injured. Appellant testified he left A.M. and her brother with neighbors, Lynn and Todd, during this time as well. Lynn and Todd had left Oklahoma shortly after A.M. was injured. A report written by A.M.'s treating physician stated A.M.'s mother told him A.M. received her lip injury when she fell out of the car; and that in his opinion A.M.'s injury could not have occurred in this manner. Appellant testified that he spanked A.M. several times when she refused to pick up her toys.
Appellant argues in his first proposition of error that the trial court erred by denying his motion in limine through which he sought to exclude evidence of his former convictions. Appellant did not object to the introduction of this evidence at trial. We have repeatedly held that a motion in limine is merely advisory and that in order to properly preserve objections to the introduction of evidence which is the subject of the motion in limine, objection must be made at the time the evidence is sought to be introduced. See e.g. Teegarden v. State, 563 P.2d 660 (Okl.Cr. 1977); Nealy v. State, 636 P.2d 378 (Okl.Cr. 1981). Appellant has, thus, waived all but fundamental error.
Appellant pled guilty to hindering law enforcement in 1980, and received a deferred sentence. He was convicted of Theft of Interstate Shipment in 1982 and Theft of Property in 1984. He relies on Croney v. State, 748 P.2d 34 (Okl.Cr. 1987) to argue these are not crimes involving dishonesty and therefore, are inadmissible for the purpose of impeachment under 12 O.S. 1981 § 2609 [12-2609]. Appellant's argument belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct categories of evidence encompassed by 12 O.S. 1981 § 2609 [12-2609] and the test of admissability applicable to each category.
Conviction of a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible under 12 O.S. 1981
Page 1 2 3 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|