373 P.3d 118
Okla. Crim. App.2016Background
- Robert Lee Reed was convicted by a Tulsa County jury of Lewd Molestation (21 O.S. § 1123) and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment plus 3 years post-imprisonment supervision.\
- The prosecution admitted a videotaped forensic interview of the child victim (State's Exhibit 12); the victim also testified at trial.\
- During deliberations the jury was provided a laptop/TV and the DVD of the victim's forensic interview to view in the jury room. Defense counsel did not object at trial.\
- Reed appealed, advancing three propositions: (1) plain error from allowing unrestricted jury access to the DVD without Martin/§ 894 procedures; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a jury instruction that conviction would require sex-offender registration; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to the jury viewing the DVD.\
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the videotaped forensic interview constituted recorded testimony requiring Martin/§ 894 safeguards, but any error was harmless; sex-offender registration is collateral (not a sentencing element) so no instruction was required; and Reed failed to show Strickland prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jury access to videotaped forensic interview during deliberations | Allowing "unfettered" jury access to the DVD (and player) violated Martin and § 894 and caused undue emphasis on the victim's recorded testimony | The recording was treated as an exhibit; trial court discretion governs exhibits going to jury; any error was harmless because evidence independently corroborated the victim | The interview was equivalent to recorded testimony and required Martin/§ 894 safeguards; failure to comply was error but harmless (no prejudice) |
| 2. Request for jury instruction that conviction requires sex-offender registration | Jurors should be informed registration is a practical consequence of conviction and could affect sentencing recommendation | Registration under SORA is a collateral regulatory obligation distinct from the statutory punishment range and not a material sentencing consequence for jury instruction purposes | Denial of instruction was not an abuse of discretion; SORA obligations are collateral and not part of punishment range jurors must be instructed on |
| 3. Ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to object to DVD going to jury | Counsel's failure to object allowed jury unrestricted viewing and was not reasonable strategy; prejudiced the defense | Reed waived some arguments; even assuming deficient performance, no Strickland prejudice because error was harmless and conviction was strongly corroborated | Claim denied: Reed did not show that counsel's performance prejudiced the outcome under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. State, 747 P.2d 316 (1987) (videotaped testimony is equivalent to in-court testimony and may not be taken to jury without procedural safeguards)\
- Davis v. State, 885 P.2d 665 (1994) (distinguishing taped exhibits from taped testimony; exhibits may go to jury)\
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (2006) (reiterating that taped testimony may not go to jury; exhibits may)\
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)\
- Levering v. State, 315 P.3d 392 (2013) (plain error standard: actual error, plain/obvious, affecting substantial rights)