BARNES v. STATE, 2017 OK CR 26

Travis Dillion Barnes (age 22) was convicted by a jury in Nowata County of first‑degree burglary and first‑degree rape of an 84‑year‑old victim; jury recommended 15 years + fine on burglary and life without parole + fine on rape. Sentences were imposed and Barnes appealed.
Victim was awakened by Barnes entering through a window, was strangled/assaulted, and sexually penetrated vaginally and anally; SANE exam and OSBI DNA testing linked Barnes to seminal material on vaginal and anal swabs.
Barnes testified and admitted entering and raping the victim, claiming he acted under duress/fear of being shot by a companion (Threadgill) who allegedly ordered him to "F her." Threadgill denied being inside the apartment.
On appeal Barnes raised prosecutorial misconduct (primarily that the prosecutor criticized his exercise of the right to a jury trial), ineffective assistance of counsel (including failure to request a duress instruction and to object to misconduct), failure to instruct on duress, failure to instruct on sex‑offender registration, excessive sentence, and cumulative error.
The Court found the prosecutor's closing argument improperly criticized Barnes for exercising his right to a jury trial (constitutional error). Given overwhelming evidence of guilt, the error was harmless as to guilt but not harmless as to sentencing; the convictions were affirmed, but sentences were vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Barnes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct — comments on right to trial	Prosecutor impermissibly attacked Barnes for going to trial rather than pleading guilty, violating Sixth Amendment	Closing comments were within argument and, given overwhelming evidence, did not affect verdict or punishment	Court: comments violated Sixth Amendment; error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to guilt but not as to sentencing — remand for resentencing
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel failed to request duress instruction, failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct and certain evidence	Counsel's omissions were either reasonable (meritless instruction) or non‑prejudicial given overwhelming proof of guilt	Denied — no prejudice shown; claim disposed without finding ineffective assistance
Failure to instruct on duress	Court should have instructed jury on duress as Barnes' sole defense	Evidence (self‑serving testimony, inconsistencies, availability of alternatives) did not warrant duress instruction	Denied — no plain or actual error; instruction not supported by evidence
Failure to instruct on sex‑offender registration	Jury should be instructed that conviction carries registration requirement	Prior precedent rejects necessity of such an instruction; no timely objection made	Denied on plain‑error review (relying on Reed); no relief granted

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Sixth Amendment jury right incorporated against 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) (prosecution may not comment on defendant's silence)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017) (prosecutorial comment on silence and harmless‑error discussion)