LEFTWICH v. STATE
2015 OK CR 5
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Deborah Ann Leftwich, an incumbent Oklahoma state senator, was convicted after a bench trial under 26 O.S. § 16-108 for soliciting/accepting a bribe to withdraw from re-election (sentence: 1 year suspended plus bar from running for or seeking state employment).
- Leftwich had maintained a campaign committee, raised and spent funds for her 2010 reelection (≈$110,000), and admitted she solicited/accepted campaign funds and wanted a post-legislative job at the Medical Examiner's office.
- Representative Randall Terrill engineered creation and funding of a statutorily‑created "Transition Coordinator" position (three years, $80,000/year) in SB 738/HB 2486, with testimony showing the position was intended for Leftwich and involved use of a revolving fund.
- Leftwich publicly announced on May 28, 2010 that she would not run; Governor Henry later vetoed the bills. Leftwich admitted she was a candidate under Ethics/Title 21 definitions and that she intended to take the job instead of running.
- On appeal Leftwich limited issues to statutory interpretation of "candidate" and "withdraw" and raised a vagueness/due process challenge; the Court reviewed statutory meaning de novo and affirmed her conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leftwich was a "candidate" under § 16-108 | State: apply broader definition (Title 21 §187/Ethics rules) to include those who solicit/accept contributions or form candidate committees | Leftwich: "candidate" in Title 26 means only a person who filed a Declaration of Candidacy under 26 O.S. §5-101 | Court: Adopted Title 21 §187 / Ethics definition; Leftwich was a candidate (affirmed) |
| Whether Leftwich "withdrew" from a political contest under § 16-108 | State: withdrawal can be demonstrated by conduct (e.g., public announcement) even if no formal filing withdrawal | Leftwich: "withdraw" is defined exclusively by filing statutory withdrawal forms (26 O.S. §§5-115,5-116,5-116.1) | Court: "Withdraw" not confined to filing notices; public announcement that she would not run sufficed |
| Vagueness / notice due process challenge to applying Title 21 definition to §16-108 | Leftwich: judicial expansion of statute unforeseeable (Bouie), so statute void for vagueness and enforcement arbitrary | State: definition consistent with statutory purpose and Ethics practice; conduct clearly proscribed | Court: Definition reasonably gives notice; application not unforeseeable or arbitrary; no vagueness violation |
| Whether application would criminalize ordinary job offers or lawful conduct | Leftwich: broad definition could criminalize many legal offers (e.g., private jobs) and enable arbitrary prosecutions | State: statute requires offer/acceptance specifically to induce withdrawal from a contest; mere job offers insufficient | Court: Statute requires causal inducement to withdraw; hypothetical benign offers do not make lawful conduct criminal absent inducement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tran, 172 P.3d 199 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (strict construction of criminal statutes and use of explicit statutory definitions)
- Owens v. State, 229 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (consulting related statutes to ascertain legislative intent)
- King v. State, 182 P.3d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (giving statutory language plain and ordinary meaning)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1964) (due process bars retroactive judicial expansion of criminal statutes)
- Powers v. Owen, 419 P.2d 277 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966) (statute construed not to incorporate external law in a manner that deprives fair notice)