“I'm finally able to feel at peace, and safe, and like I truly belong.”
Lisa Moss told Tulsa TV station KTUL those words after becoming the only person resentenced so far under the Oklahoma Survivors' Act.
Enacted in late 2024, the law allows domestic violence survivors to seek reduced sentences if abuse was a “substantial contributing factor” in the crime they committed.
Supporters hoped for more survivors to qualify. Instead, every applicant except Moss has been denied.
“I definitely expected to have a lot more people out by now,” attorney and Oklahoma Appleseed Executive Director Colleen McCarty said. “I think a lot of people did.”
McCarty said many denials hinge on how prosecutors and courts interpret the “substantial contributing factor” language in the statute.
“It doesn't have to be the one thing that caused you to do it,” she said. “I think there's some confusion around that. And I think there's confusion also around how you prove if something was a substantial contributing factor.”
"Substantial contributing factor" disagreements
One of the most prominent cases involves April Wilkens, who shot her ex-fiancé while abuse was actively occurring, according to advocates.
Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler acknowledged Wilkens endured domestic violence but argued her drug use and mental illness were more important factors.
“I don’t think there’s any doubt that she endured domestic violence at the hands of Terry Carlton,” Kunzweiler said. “I don’t think anybody’s disputing that.”
Wilkens was denied resentencing in a contentious hearing where Judge David Guten rendered a decision moments after closing arguments.
Guten acknowledged that Wilkens suffered abuse, including vaginal tears and bruises noted in two different exams, but the judge said it wasn't enough of a contributing factor in Carlton's murder to achieve resentencing.
Tracey Lyall, CEO of Domestic Violence Intervention Services, criticized Guten's denial and how the case was litigated.
“The decisions that we make day to day in our court system and processes are either going to encourage survivors to come forward and feel like they're believed and valued, or it's going to do the opposite of that,” Lyall said.
Confusing waivers, plea deals
Advocates have also raised concerns about plea agreements offered by the Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office.
Reporting last year showed some defendants were offered plea deals that included waiving their rights to later seek resentencing under the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act.
Kunzweiler said the practice is still common and compared it to other legal consequences defendants must be informed about when entering plea deals.
“This is not anything unusual,” Kunzweiler said, citing Padilla v. Kentucky, a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that defense attorneys must advise noncitizen defendants that a criminal conviction could lead to deportation.
Kunzweiler said it is important for survivors to disclose their abuse during prosecution because it can affect sentencing ranges.
“When it comes to survivors, they need to make the prosecution aware of their status as someone who was abused because it will impact their range of punishment,” he said.
Advocates argue that requiring survivors to raise abuse early, often before they understand the legal significance, undermines the purpose of the Survivors’ Act.
"To ask a person to waive those rights preemptively is just more pressure and power and control," Leslie Briggs, an attorney who previously worked with the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice told KTUL. "It's the system engaging in the same kind of power and control that survivors have worked so hard to escape."
Compensation for experts
Critics have also focused on the resources used to oppose resentencing.
The district attorney’s office paid a Wichita-based forensic psychologist more than $20,000 to testify in two survivor cases. The expert, Jarrod Steffan, described repeated assault as only “one data point” in his decision that abuse was not a substantial contributing factor in the case of Kim Perigo.
Kunzweiler said his office’s $8 million budget is already stretched thin and lawmakers did not provide additional funding when they passed the Survivors’ Act.
“It would have been nice when the Oklahoma Legislature passed the Oklahoma Survivors' Act that they would have provided prosecutors’ offices with a budget so we could address this,” Kunzweiler told KWGS when asked if taxpayers would appreciate the way he’s fighting the Survivors' Act cases. “They didn't do that.”
Survivors often have far fewer resources. In the case of Perigo, who shot her ex-husband, her expert witness was paid about $2,000.
"Intimate partner" requirement
Survivor Erica Harrison was denied resentencing because her abuser was a family friend rather than an “intimate partner,” a relationship required by the statute, said Tulsa County Assistant District Attorney Megan Hilborn.
“There was no requisite relationship that existed between Erica Harrison and the decedent in this case," the assistant DA told KWGS after Harrison’s hearing. “She (Harrison) fell outside of that relationship that’s required by statute.”
Illinois law has seen tweaks
Oklahoma is not the only state with survivor-focused sentencing laws experiencing challenges.
Illinois has repeatedly amended similar legislation enacted more than a decade ago.
The Land of Lincoln closed a loophole like the one affecting Harrison by removing “intimate partner” language, recognizing that gender-based violence can be committed by someone outside a formal relationship.
The state also clarified that survivors who accepted plea agreements could still seek resentencing.
Illinois state Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who sponsored the changes, told KWGS courts required lawmakers to be clear.
“The court's decision said that if the state had intended this to apply to plea agreements, we needed to be explicit about it,” Cassidy said. “So that last bill that we did came back and corrected for that.”
Attorney and advocate Colleen McCarty is still not ready to make changes to the legislation. She wants to see how the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will uphold the law. But if Oklahoma courts continue to narrow the Survivors' Act then she would want to see the legislation change.
“If we still aren't getting the results then it would be necessary to make some amendments to the law,” McCarty said. “And make it more clear.”
Outreach efforts seek change
Illinois survivor advocates have made sure to set up trainings for state attorneys and judges.
“Judicial education is coming more in the form of individual cases and advocacy for judges to learn about it that way,” Director of Policy and Special Projects at the Women’s Justice Institute in Chicago Alexis Mansfield said.
“We've talked with state's attorneys and tried to educate them more about it.”
The hope is that trying more cases and continuing advocacy will change results.
Lyall is not sure that purely through education changes will come.
“I've done this work a long time,” she said, discussing her more than 25 years of experience. “I feel like you cannot train the bias out of someone.”
Change still elusive
Even with all the training and changes to the law, resentencing relief in Illinois remains rare.
Mansfield said she knows of only eight survivors who have received relief under Illinois law.
One judge’s words during a resentencing hearing still stand out to her.
“I find that the victim that you killed was abusing you and raping you,” Mansfield said repeating the words of an Illinois judge, “and so I'm resentencing you from 30 years to 27 years.”
That person received three years of resentencing relief, which is three more than most Oklahoma survivors.
