LEFTWICH v. STATE
350 P.3d 149
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2015Background
- Deborah Leftwich, an Oklahoma state senator, raised and spent campaign funds for reelection (≈$110,000) and filed a statement of candidacy with the Ethics Commission for the 2010 cycle; she announced on May 28, 2010 she would not run.
- Legislative negotiations created a statutory “Transition Coordinator” position (three‑year term, $80,000/yr) in SB 738 and funding in HB 2486; evidence showed Representative Randall Terrill promoted the position for Leftwich and arranged funding via a revolving fund.
- Governor Henry vetoed SB 738 and HB 2486 after concerns and a pending criminal investigation; criminal charges followed against Leftwich (accepting a bribe to withdraw) and Terrill (offering a bribe).
- Leftwich was convicted after a bench trial under 26 O.S. § 16-108 for soliciting/accepting value to withdraw as a candidate; she admitted campaign activity and that she wanted the Transition Coordinator job.
- On appeal Leftwich limited issues to statutory interpretation and due process: (1) whether she qualified as a "candidate" for § 16-108, (2) whether she "withdrew" under the statute, and (3) whether application of the broader definitions violated due process/vagueness.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding (a) "candidate" as used in the bribery statutes includes the broader Title 21 definition and Ethics Commission practice, (b) "withdraw" is not limited to filing formal withdrawal notices, and (c) the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Leftwich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "candidate" under 26 O.S. §16-108 includes persons who have not filed a Declaration of Candidacy | "Candidate" includes persons who seek election by raising funds, filing statements with Ethics Commission, soliciting contributions — use Title 21 §187 definition | "Candidate" means only a person who filed a Declaration of Candidacy under 26 O.S. §5-101 (i.e., on the ballot) | Court adopted Title 21 §187/Ethics Rule definition; Leftwich was a candidate (affirmed) |
| Whether "withdraw" requires filing a statutory written notice with election board | "Withdraw" can be shown by conduct (e.g., public announcement not to run) and need not be limited to formal filing when person is a candidate under §187 | Withdrawal is only the formal statutory filing (§5-115 et seq.) | Withdrawal not limited to statutory filing; Leftwich’s May 28 announcement satisfied element (affirmed) |
| Whether applying Title 21 §187 to §16-108 is unconstitutionally vague or unforeseeable (due process) | The broader definition is consistent with statutes and Ethics practice; a reasonable person would understand the proscribed conduct | Adoption of §187 retroactively expanded §16-108 and deprived notice; statute vague and enables arbitrary enforcement | Court held statute not vague as applied; Leftwich had notice from her campaign activity and Ethics rules (affirmed) |
| Whether reading Title 26 and Title 21 together creates statutory conflict or absurdities (e.g., ballot/ substitute provisions) | Statutes harmonize: ballot placement still requires filing; Title 21 definition addresses who is a "candidate" for bribery/election‑crime purposes | Using Title 21 renders Election Code provisions redundant or absurd | Court reconciled provisions; using §187 does not conflict with filing/ballot rules and yields sensible results (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tran, 172 P.3d 199 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007) (strict construction of criminal statutes and reliance on an express definitional provision when present)
- King v. State, 182 P.3d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (use plain meaning and statutory context to determine legislative intent)
- Owens v. State, 229 P.3d 1261 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (consult definitions in other titles when interpreting related criminal statutes)
- Allen v. City of Oklahoma City, 965 P.2d 387 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) (statutory vagueness standard: reasonable people must be able to know conduct is prohibited)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1964) (judicial construction cannot retroactively expand criminal prohibitions in a way that denies fair notice)