BARNES v. STATE
408 P.3d 209
Okla. Crim. App.2017Background
- In Nowata County, Travis Dillion Barnes (age 22) was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary and first-degree rape of an 84-year-old woman (D.P.); jury recommended 15 years + $10,000 fine for burglary and life without parole + $1,000 fine for rape. Sentences were imposed and ordered consecutive; Barnes must register as a sex offender.
- Facts: Barnes entered D.P.’s apartment through a window, assaulted and choked her, and sexually penetrated her vaginally and anally; sheets were taken and Barnes fled. Victim underwent SANE exam; OSBI testing found semen and DNA consistent with Barnes on multiple swabs.
- Barnes testified and admitted entering and raping D.P., but claimed he acted under duress because a companion (Threadgill) had a gun and ordered him to "‘F’ her"; Barnes said he raped to save his life.
- Prosecutor’s closing argued Barnes should not have put the victim or jury through trial and implied Barnes abused his right to a jury trial by not pleading guilty; defense did not object at trial.
- The Court found overwhelming evidence of guilt (confession and DNA) so guilt verdicts were affirmed, but held the prosecutor’s comments about exercising the right to trial violated the Sixth Amendment and constituted constitutional error affecting sentencing; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Barnes’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — comments about exercising jury-trial right | Prosecutor improperly attacked Barnes for going to trial, prejudicing sentencing | Comments were allowable argument and did not affect verdict or sentence | Comments violated Sixth Amendment; constitutional error; harmless for guilt but not for sentencing; remand for resentencing |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request duress instruction | Counsel was ineffective for not requesting jury instruction on duress | Evidence did not warrant duress instruction; omission not deficient | No ineffective assistance: duress not supported by record; instruction not required |
| Trial court’s failure to instruct jury on duress (sua sponte) | Court erred by not instructing on duress | No evidence to support giving duress instruction | No plain error: instruction not warranted by evidence |
| Failure to instruct jury on sex-offender registration consequences | Jury should have been told registration would follow conviction | Prior precedent rejects requirement; no plain error shown | Claim denied under controlling precedent (no plain error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Sixth Amendment right to jury trial is fundamental and incorporated to the states)
- United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968) (penalizing exercise of trial rights is unconstitutional)
- Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant's silence)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard: constitutional error may be upheld only if harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)