WILLIS v. STATE
2017 OK CR 23
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Oscar Dale Willis was convicted by a jury in Oklahoma County for Offering and/or Soliciting Sexual Conduct with a Minor by Use of Technology (21 O.S. § 1040.13a) and sentenced to a $4,000 fine after the jury declined to recommend prison.
- Facts: Willis showed Samuel Burwell a cell‑phone photo of a scantily clad teenage girl, told Burwell the girl was 14, and offered her for sex (including mention of $600); the face‑to‑face offers occurred after showing the photo.
- Procedural history: Willis was initially charged with attempting to obtain money by false pretenses; after a preliminary hearing where Burwell testified, that charge was dismissed and Willis was recharged under § 1040.13a. Burwell later was unavailable at trial; the State used his preliminary hearing transcript.
- Defense objections: (1) insufficiency because the offer was made face‑to‑face to an adult (not via technology or directly to a minor); (2) Confrontation Clause violation from reading preliminary hearing testimony; (3) admission of prejudicial evidence (teacher status; sexual items found) and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
- Outcome below and on appeal: Trial court admitted Burwell’s preliminary hearing testimony as testimony of an unavailable witness; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting all propositions of error.
Issues
| Issue | Willis' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1040.13a requires the offer be made by electronic communication or directly to a minor | Willis: Showing a photo to an adult and then making a face‑to‑face offer is not an offer "by use of technology" and the statute targets exploitation via technology | The photo shown on a cell phone was the use of technology to facilitate/offering a minor for sex even though the verbal offer was face‑to‑face | Court: Technology was used to facilitate the offer; viewing the photo on a phone + offer falls within § 1040.13a; evidence sufficient. |
| Admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony under Confrontation Clause | Willis: Charge changed after preliminary hearing so motive for cross‑examination differed; reading transcript denied right to confront | State: Burwell was unavailable despite good‑faith efforts; Willis had prior opportunity to cross‑examine Burwell at preliminary hearing | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; witness unavailable and prior cross‑examination was adequate; Confrontation Clause satisfied. |
| Admission of evidence that Willis was an elementary school teacher | Willis: Highly prejudicial and irrelevant to charged conduct | State: Relevant to identifying and locating defendant; probative value outweighed prejudice | Court: Evidence was prejudicial but any error was harmless given strong evidence of guilt. |
| Admission of sexual items found in locked bedroom | Willis: Items were irrelevant and inflammatory | State: Items had minimal relevance but were part of investigation | Court: Admission was of minimal relevance and possibly improper, but any error was harmless. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (closing argument about sex‑offender registration) | Willis: Prosecutor urged conviction to force sex‑offender registration | State: (not separately argued on appeal) | Court: Claim waived for appellate review due to procedural rule noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arganbright v. State, 328 P.3d 1212 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014) (interpreting § 1040.13a and upholding narrow, technology‑focused prohibition on communications facilitating sexual conduct with minors)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause requires unavailability plus prior opportunity for cross‑examination for testimonial statements)
- Mathis v. State, 271 P.3d 67 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (use of preliminary hearing testimony governed by Crawford standards; prior cross allowed transcript admission)
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (transcript of prior hearing admissible where defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
- Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994) (harmless‑error framework for assessing prejudicial evidence admission)