CHADWELL v. STATE, 446 P.3d 1244

Daniel Ryan Chadwell was tried on 40 counts of lewd acts with a child under 16; acquitted on Counts 25 and 26 and convicted on the rest.
Jury assessed lengthy prison terms on each count; the district court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
On appeal Chadwell raised two claims: (1) erroneous jury instructions regarding sentencing enhancement for victims under 12; and (2) cumulative prosecutorial misconduct.
The instruction issue: the jury was not instructed that a finding the victim was under 12 was required to impose the 25-year mandatory minimum.
The court held the failure to instruct on the under-12 finding was constitutional error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence showed all victims were under 12.
The court rejected the prosecutorial-misconduct claim, finding none of the comments amounted to plain error or deprived Chadwell of a fair trial; judgment and sentence affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction re: age-based sentencing enhancement	Chadwell: jury should have been instructed that victims had to be found under 12 to impose the 25-year mandatory minimum	State: lewd acts statute covers under-16; under-12 is only a sentencing enhancement and separate instruction unnecessary	Error to omit the under-12 sentencing-element instruction, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because evidence that victims were under 12 was overwhelming
Prosecutorial misconduct (cumulative)	Chadwell: prosecutor's comments cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial	State: comments were within permissible bounds; no timely objections and no prejudice	No plain error; comments did not seriously affect fairness or integrity of proceedings; claim denied

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (United States Supreme Court) (facts that increase statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (United States Supreme Court) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements for the jury)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (United States Supreme Court) (omitted-element jury-instruction errors reviewed for harmlessness)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (United States Supreme Court) (constitutional error subject to harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard)
Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (Okla. Crim. App.) (duty to instruct jury on law raised by evidence; plain-error framework)
United States v. Ellis, 868 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir.) (judge-found facts increasing minimum sentence violate Sixth Amendment)