IN THE MATTER OF K. H.
2021 OK 33
| Okla. | 2021Background
- August 2018: Midwest City police discovered R.H. (age 9) hidden in parents' home with extensive bruising; both Taylor and Cody Hudson were arrested and charged with felony child abuse; DHS removed four children (including a newborn) and filed petitions alleging the children were deprived and seeking immediate termination of parental rights for "heinous and shocking" abuse of a sibling.
- The State filed an amended petition that expressly referenced the pending criminal child-abuse information as support for the deprivation and termination allegations.
- At the May 2019 jury trial (adjudication as to Mother and termination for both parents), the trial court overruled Parents' motion in limine and permitted extensive questioning about the pending criminal charges and admitted State Exhibit No. 1 (the criminal information and probable-cause affidavits) over continuing objection.
- The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent committed heinous and shocking physical abuse of a sibling (R.H.), and the trial court entered judgments terminating both parents' rights to their four children.
- On appeal (and rehearing), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held admission of evidence of the pending criminal charges and giving Instruction No. 8 (which quoted the petition and referenced the charges) were inherently prejudicial and reversible; the deprived adjudications were left intact but the termination judgments were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parents) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of pending criminal child-abuse charges | Evidence of pending charges (and the Information) was irrelevant to the statutory elements for termination and highly prejudicial; exclusion required. | The arrests/charges were a central fact that witnesses would reference and leaving them out would confuse the jury; jurors should be told the factual context. | Reversed: admission of the pending criminal charges (including the Information Exhibit) was not relevant to the termination elements under §2401 and, even if marginally relevant, its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under §2403. |
| Jury Instruction No. 8 quoting the amended petition and listing the criminal charge | Quoting the petition to the jury including the criminal-charge allegation improperly injected prejudicial matter; the reference should have been deleted. | Instruction followed OUJI-Juv-2.2 and the petition’s allegations give the jury notice; the instruction included a disclaimer that allegations are not evidence. | Reversed: including the criminal-charge allegation in Instruction No. 8 was error because that allegation was not a material element of the termination ground (heinous and shocking abuse) and risked confusing the jury given the admitted Exhibit. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for "heinous and shocking" abuse (alternative argument) | Any finding depended on the improperly admitted evidence; without it, the record lacks clear and convincing proof of heinous and shocking abuse. | The record independently contained overwhelming admissible evidence (photos, medical exam, forensic interview, witness testimony) supporting heinous and shocking abuse; any error was harmless. | Court did not decide sufficiency for all evidence but found the evidentiary and instructional errors were inherently prejudicial and warranted a new trial despite the State's contention of overwhelming evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (recognizes parents' fundamental liberty interest and need for full procedural safeguards in deprivation/termination proceedings)
- In re T.T.S., 373 P.3d 1022 (Okla. 2015) (reversal where jury instructions/procedure violated statutory/constitutional safeguards in TPR case)
- Karriman v. Orthopedic Clinic, 516 P.2d 534 (Okla. 1973) (harmless-error standard for non-constitutional evidentiary errors)
- Teague v. United Truck Serv., 499 P.2d 380 (Okla. 1972) (distinguishes errors that are inherently prejudicial from routine evidentiary errors)
- Roberts v. Lewis, 441 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1968) (errors that are highly prejudicial require reversal unless it can be affirmatively shown no harm resulted)
- Bechtel v. State, 738 P.2d 559 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (prosecutor's expressed opinion of guilt risks undue influence on the jury)