Sorrell v. State

Summary

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Lonnie Keith Sorrell's convictions for three counts of lewd or indecent acts with a child under twelve. The court held that testimony supporting the victim's credibility was improperly admitted as preemptive bolstering because the victim's credibility had not yet been attacked by evidence, but concluded the error did not affect Sorrell's substantial rights. The court also rejected his challenge to consecutive sentences and found no abuse of discretion.

Holdings

1. Testimony from the school counselor and great-grandmother that supported WB's credibility constituted improper bolstering because WB's character for truthfulness had not been attacked by evidence before the testimony was introduced.
2. The improper bolstering did not affect Sorrell's substantial rights and therefore did not warrant relief.
3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 to run consecutively.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor improperly bolstered the credibility of the complaining witness by eliciting opinion testimony about her truthfulness before her credibility had been attacked by evidence.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the sentences on Counts 1 and 2 to run consecutively based on the jury's notation of "minimum" on the verdict forms.

Disposition

affirmed