By Patti Weaver
STILLWATER — In the first case of its type in Oklahoma, a Payne County judge has ruled that the District Attorney’s Office did not violate the victim’s rights of a Stillwater teenager whose ex-boyfriend pleaded no contest to sexually assaulting and choking her while they were dating in high school.
Because Jesse Mack Butler, now 18, of Stillwater was about 16 and one-half at the time of the alleged attacks on his then-girlfriend, he was not incarcerated but placed under the supervision of the Office of Juvenile Affairs as a youthful offender as part of a plea agreement with the prosecution.
After the case was widely publicized on television and social media, the DA received “death threats, numerous accusatory and false social media posts, incessant calls from concerned citizens, protests on the courthouse lawn, all of which have interfered with the operations of the office and the state of Oklahoma’s ability to perform its duties,” Assistant District Attorney Karen Dixon wrote in a motion for a finding of compliance with the Oklahoma Victim’s Rights Act.
In a written ruling filed in court on April 20, Associate District Judge Michael Kulling, who held a three-day hearing from April 13 through April 15, concluded that the victim and her parents had failed to provide evidence that their rights under the Oklahoma Constitution and Oklahoma Victim’s Rights Act were violated.
The judge noted, “this matter presents an issue of first impression in Oklahoma regarding the scope and enforceability of victims’ rights.”
Both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Victim’s Rights Act “provide victims the right to be informed of proceedings, including plea negotiations, and the right to confer with the attorney for the state. However, neither provision confers upon victims the authority to direct, control or veto prosecutorial decision making.
“Had the Legislature or framers of the constitutional provision intended to vest victims with decision-making authority over plea agreements, such intent would have been expressly stated. Instead, the rights afforded are participatory and informational in nature, not determinative.
“The evidentiary record reflects that representatives of the District Attorney’s Office met with Movants (the victim and her parents) on multiple occasions, provided updates regarding the status of the case, discussed plea negotiations, and engaged the assistance of a victim advocate to support Movants throughout the process.
“The court acknowledges that certain communications — particularly those addressing the evidentiary strengths and weaknesses of the case prior to the filing of charges — were, by their nature, difficult and, at times, distressing. However, candid and direct discussion of such matters is an inherent and necessary aspect of prosecutorial evaluation and does not, without more, constitute a failure to treat victims with fairness and dignity.
“The evidence presented establishes that on or about July 25, 2025, the District Attorney’s Office informed Movants that it had entered into a plea agreement reducing the charges to youthful offender status.
“At that time, Movants were advised of the material terms of the agreement including that Defendant would not be sentenced to imprisonment but would instead be subject to supervision through the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, with the possibility of subsequent transfer to the adult system upon noncompliance.
“The evidence further demonstrates that Movants were initially advised that Defendant intended to enter guilty pleas and were later informed, on or about August 22, 2025, that Defendant would instead enter pleas of no contest. Movants were present in court on August 25, 2025, at the time the pleas were entered and were afforded the opportunity to present victim impact statements.
“Additionally, counsel for Movants and a victim advocate were present during the proceedings, and no contemporaneous objection was made asserting lack of notice or inability to confer. Based upon the totality of the evidence, the court finds that Movants were informed of plea negotiations and were afforded the opportunity to confer with the attorney for the state.
“While movants clearly disagreed with the outcome of those negotiations, dissatisfaction with the result does not equate to a denial of rights under Oklahoma law. The court finds no evidence of conduct rising to the level of a constitutional or statutory violation.
“After careful consideration of the evidence and applicable law, the court concludes that Movants have failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that their rights under Article 2, Section 34 of the Oklahoma Constitution or Title 21 O.S. 142A were violated.”
