ROUSCH v. STATE
2017 OK CR 7
Okla. Crim. App.2017Background
- Defendant Ralph Leslie Rousch was tried by jury in Tulsa County and convicted of three counts of Making Obscene, Threatening, or Harassing Electronic Communication (misdemeanors) after former felony convictions.
- Each count related to separate phone calls placed between March 20, 2012 and August 25, 2012; alleged victim was a minor and Rousch continued calling after being told to stop.
- Sentences: three months jail and $500 fine on each count, ordered to run consecutively.
- Rousch appealed, arguing his Count II conviction violated double jeopardy because § 1172(C) treats the offense as a "continuing offense" and therefore multiple calls should be prosecuted as a single offense.
- The Court reviewed for plain error (issue not preserved at trial) and applied harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard because the claim raises constitutional dimensions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple convictions for separate calls under 21 O.S. §1172 violate Double Jeopardy | State: each count alleges distinct acts requiring proof the other does not; Blockburger test satisfied | Rousch: §1172(C) labels the offense a "continuing offense," so repeated calls constitute one continuing crime and multiple convictions punish the same offense | Court: No double jeopardy violation — §1172(C) governs venue/jurisdiction, not multiplicity; each charged call was a separate act in time, so multiple convictions are permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartell v. State, 881 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (plain-error review principles)
- Head v. State, 146 P.3d 1141 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (plain-error standard)
- Mack v. State, 188 P.3d 1284 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008) (double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishment for same offense)
- Grant v. State, 205 P.3d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (separate acts interrupted in time do not violate double jeopardy)
- Logsdon v. State, 231 P.3d 1156 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010) (use of Blockburger test to analyze multiplicity)
- Robinson v. State, 255 P.3d 425 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt review for unpreserved constitutional error)
- Barnard v. State, 290 P.3d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (plain-error review guidance)
- Leftwich v. State, 350 P.3d 149 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Lewis v. City of Oklahoma City, 387 P.3d 899 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016) (avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless)
Decision: Judgment and sentence affirmed.