DUCLOS v. STATE
2017 OK CR 8
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Duclos was convicted by jury of Unlawful Communication With Minor By Use of Technology (21 O.S.2011, § 1040.13a) in Canadian County; jury recommended 8 years and $5,000 fine.
- Appellant engaged in email and text exchanges with someone believed to be a 14-year-old; the person was actually a sheriff's officer.
- Duclos arranged to meet the minor at a movie theater; he admitted, after Miranda waiver, to coming to meet a 14-year-old girl.
- A search of his vehicle uncovered a pillow and blanket in the back seat, suggesting intent to engage in sexual activity.
- Prosecutor charged the case in the trial court with Judge Jack D. McCurdy II serving as Special Judge; propriety of McCurdy's involvement under § 576 was challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 576 error regarding the same judge requires reversal | Duclos argues the presiding judge at trial breached § 576 because he also heard the preliminary hearing. | State concedes error but claims it was harmless; no structural error and no bias shown. | Harmless error; not structural; conviction affirmed |
| Whether the jury should have been instructed on sex-offender registration | Duclos contends registration is a salient feature that courts must instruct on. | State argues registration is not a material feature requiring instruction. | Instruction not required; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence is excessive | Duclos challenges the eight-year term as excessive. | State contends the sentence is within statutory bounds and not shocking to conscience. | Not excessive; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. State, 373 P.3d 118 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (sex-offender registration not a salient feature requiring instruction)
- Hogan v. State, 139 P.3d 907 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (harmless error analysis for trial errors; strong presumption of harmless error)
- Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error framework for certain trial errors)
- Mitchell v. State, 136 P.3d 671 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (waiver of right to disqualify judge; discretionary review under plain error)
- Phillips v. State, 989 P.2d 1017 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999) (trial-in-restraint provisions subject to harmless error analysis)