State of Oklahoma v. Kevin Lee Highsaw

Tulsa, Oklahoma criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with First Degree Rape and Sodomy in violation of 21 O.S. 1114.]

Mr. Highsaw had turned seventeen years old just ten days before the victim was raped on February 1, 1983

The legislature's clear intent in changing the definition of "child" in 1982 was to give persons 16 and 17 years of age adult status if they are charged with Rape in the First Degree, unless they can convince the court that they should be certified as juveniles, since it affirmatively changed the definition of "child" with full knowledge of the proceedings used for children and adults alike. See 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 1101 [10-1101](A). This intent was further underscored when the legislature passed some clarifying legislation in 1986 to make it even more clear that persons under the age of 18 could be charged with Rape in the First Degree, see 21 O.S.Supp. 1986 § 1114 [21-1114], and that 10 O.S. 1981 § 1104.2 [10-1104.2] should properly be viewed as an extension of the definition contained in 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 1101 [10-1101](A). In Stokes v. State, 738 P.2d 1364 (Okl.Cr. 1987), this Court refused to disturb the trial court's discretion in refusing to remand her to the juvenile court insofar as the crime she committed was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated and willful manner against a person. In the instant case, we decline to reverse the trial court's decision. Rape in the First Degree is a violent, wilful act committed against the victim's will. In addition, appellant was also charged with the offense of forcible sodomy, an index crime which precludes juvenile status, unless the court finds legal reasons for releasing jurisdiction to the Juvenile Court. We therefore deny the first assignment of error.

In deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to certify an accused as a child, the court must consider certain factors, namely:

1. Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner;

2. Whether the offense was against persons or property, greater weight being given for retaining the accused person within the adult criminal system for offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

3. The record and past history of the accused person, including previous contacts with law enforcement agencies and juvenile or criminal courts, prior periods of probation and commitments to juvenile institutions; and

4. The prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the juvenile system.

The Defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to ten years' and five years' imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run consecutively.