WILLIS v. STATE
2017 OK CR 23
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2017Background
- Oscar Dale Willis was convicted by jury of 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; jury recommended no prison.
- At issue: Willis showed a cell-phone photo of a scantily clad teenage girl to Samuel Burwell and, in person, offered the girl for sex and mentioned $600; Burwell reported the conduct to police.
- Willis was initially charged with attempting to obtain money by false pretenses; Burwell testified at that preliminary hearing and was later unavailable at trial, so his preliminary-hearing transcript was read into evidence.
- The State introduced evidence that Willis was an elementary school teacher and that police found sexual items (condoms, lubricant) in a locked bedroom in his home; defense objected as prejudicial and irrelevant.
- Willis raised three appellate propositions: (1) insufficiency because the offer was face-to-face and not made "by use of technology;" (2) Confrontation Clause violation from admission of Burwell’s preliminary hearing testimony; (3) erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence and prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed: (a) technology was implicated by showing the photo on a cell phone even though the offer was verbal; (b) Burwell was adequately cross-examined at the preliminary hearing and was properly deemed unavailable; (c) admission of teacher/bedroom evidence was harmless error and the prosecutorial-misconduct claim was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Willis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an offer made face-to-face can violate § 1040.13a when a photo on a cell phone is used | Showing the photo on a cell phone is use of technology that facilitated the offer | The offer was oral to an adult; the photo merely shown to an adult is not "by use of technology" and does not exploit a minor | Court: Technology was the source of the sexual exploitation; showing the phone photo + oral offer satisfied § 1040.13a; evidence sufficient |
| Whether admitting Burwell’s preliminary hearing testimony violated the Confrontation Clause | Prior cross-examination at preliminary hearing was adequate; witness was unavailable at trial | Change in charging instrument meant Willis lacked similar motive at preliminary hearing, so confrontation right was violated | Court: Defense had full opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine at preliminary hearing; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting transcript |
| Whether evidence that Willis was a teacher and sexual items found in bedroom were unfairly prejudicial | Teacher status helped identify defendant and corroborate address; items were marginally relevant to credibility / propensity | Evidence was highly prejudicial, irrelevant to the charged conduct, and should have been excluded | Court: Admission was erroneous but harmless given strong evidence of guilt; no grave doubt verdict was affected |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument improperly suggested verdict would force sex-offender registration | (Not separately briefed as an independent proposition) | Argued closing comments encouraged guilt to mandate registration | Court: Issue waived for appellate review due to failure to present as separate proposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Arganbright v. State, 328 P.3d 1212 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014) (interpreting § 1040.13a as targeting use of electronic technology to sexually exploit minors)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay admissible only if witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Stouffer v. State, 147 P.3d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006) (prior cross-examination at a hearing satisfies confrontation clause when transcript is used at trial)
- Mathis v. State, 271 P.3d 67 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012) (standard for admissibility of preliminary hearing testimony and confrontation analysis)
- Rutan v. State, 202 P.3d 839 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009) (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)