Burgess v. State, 2010 OK CR 25

BURGESS, the elected Sheriff of Custer County, served on the Washita/Custer Drug Court Team; he oversaw urinalysis testing and a deputy acted as drug court compliance officer.
He befriended drug court participant J.M.; in February 2006 he repeatedly summoned her to Oklahoma City, provided alcohol, engaged in sexual acts including oral sodomy, and had intercourse at multiple locations.
He intervened in J.M.'s urinalysis testing to dismiss positive results, and later had J.M. tested by a mouth swab with discarded positive tests.
In January 2007 Burgess assisted in an investigation of another participant, B.B., manipulated circumstances to pressure B.B., and engaged in sexual acts with B.B. under coercive circumstances.
In May 2007 J.M. testified she could not continue the relationship; Burgess was implicated in coercive supervision of drug court participants; an additional 2005 incident involved groping a deputy in a courthouse.
The jury convicted Burgess of multiple offenses, including pattern of criminal offenses, sexual battery, bribery by public official, kidnapping, forcible oral sodomy, and second degree rape, with sentences totaling multiple years and fines; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed after appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved sufficiency at the preliminary hearing for Counts 1, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34	Burgess contends evidence at preliminary hearing was insufficient.	State contends probable cause supported each charged offense and that plain error did not occur.	Probable cause supported the offenses; no plain error.
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions (general sufficiency)	Evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Evidence, viewed in the State's favor, supported guilt especially for B.B. offenses.	Evidence sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt for the offenses, including B.B.
Whether jury instructions were unconstitutional and violated due process	Instructions allegedly mis-stated the law and burden of proof.	Instructions were accurate; no relief for error.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; instructions accurate; no due process violation.
Whether the sentences were excessive or tainted by error requiring modification	Unconstitutional instructions and uncorroborated testimony warranted sentence modification.	Sentences within statutory ranges and not shockingly excessive; no cumulative error.	Sentences within ranges; no modification or reversal warranted.

Easlick v. State, 90 P.3d 556 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (evidence sufficiency standards in “beyond a reasonable doubt” review)
Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985) (sufficiency review and evidentiary standards)
Plantz v. State, 876 P.2d 268 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
Cipriano v. State, 32 P.3d 869 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (instructional correctness and preservation of error)
Patton v. State, 973 P.2d 270 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (burden of proof and jury instructions)
Birdine v. State, 85 P.3d 284 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (harmless error standard beyond reasonable doubt)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (due process and reasonable doubt standard in jury instructions)
Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (instruction to presumption of guilt reversed; applicable to harmless error analysis)
Primeaux v. State, 88 P.3d 893 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004) (waiver and plain error review in trial proceedings)
Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (preservation of error and plain error standard)
Rea v. State, 34 P.3d 148 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001) (excessive sentence review and constitutional considerations)
Ashinsky v. State, 780 P.2d 201 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989) (cumulative-error doctrine and harmless error)