IN THE MATTER OF K. H.
2021 OK 33
| Okla. | 2021Background
- Parents (Taylor and Cody Hudson) were criminally charged after police found Cody’s son R.H. with extensive bruising and hidden in a dryer; DHS removed the Hudsons’ younger children and the State filed an amended petition alleging the children were deprived and seeking immediate termination of parental rights based on heinous and shocking abuse to R.H. (a half‑sibling).
- Father earlier entered a no‑contest stipulation and the court adjudicated the children deprived as to him; at the May 2019 jury trial the court also adjudicated the children deprived as to Mother and proceeded on termination.
- Over Parents’ motion in limine, the trial court allowed the State to question Parents about pending felony child‑abuse charges and admitted the State’s criminal information (and supporting affidavits) into evidence; Instruction No. 8 (Statement of the Case) quoted the petition and referenced the pending criminal charges.
- The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent committed heinous and shocking abuse and returned verdicts terminating both parents’ rights to four children; Parents appealed, challenging admission of the charges and Instruction No. 8 as irrelevant, highly prejudicial, and violative of their right to a fair trial.
- On rehearing the Oklahoma Supreme Court held the trial court abused its discretion: admitting evidence of the pending criminal charges and instructing the jury with the petition language referencing those charges were inherently prejudicial and deprived Parents of a fair trial; the termination judgments were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial (the deprived adjudications remain undisturbed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hudson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence of pending criminal charges | Charges are factual, probative, and part of the investigation; omission would confuse jury | Charges are irrelevant to statutory elements for termination and are highly prejudicial | Reversed: charges were not relevant to proving statutory elements and were unduly prejudicial; admission was reversible error |
| Admission of State’s criminal information exhibit | Exhibit is factual documentary evidence supporting the State’s case | Exhibit improperly conveys the prosecutor’s legal conclusion of guilt and prejudices the jury | Reversed: the information improperly conveyed the State’s legal opinion and prejudiced the jury |
| Jury Instruction No. 8 quoting petition (including charge references) | Instruction tracks OUJI Juv‑2.2 and merely states allegations; includes disclaimer that allegations are not evidence | Quoting the petition including pending charges misleads the jury and is unnecessary once the court adjudicated deprivation | Reversed with remand: inclusion of charge references was error and potentially confusing/prejudicial; should have been deleted |
| Sufficiency of evidence of "heinous and shocking" abuse | Evidence (photographs, medical records, forensic interview, witness testimony) overwhelmingly supported guilty finding | Any termination verdict rested improperly on prejudicial charge evidence rather than statutory proof | Court did not decide sufficiency as basis to affirm; reversal rests on evidentiary/instruction errors and a new trial is required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (recognizing parental liberty interest and need for full procedural safeguards in deprivation hearings)
- In re T.T.S., 373 P.3d 1022 (Okla. 2015) (jury instructions and procedural errors may warrant reversal when they substantially violate rights)
- Teague v. United Truck Serv., 499 P.2d 380 (Okla. 1972) (distinguishing inherently prejudicial errors from non‑inherently prejudicial errors for harmless‑error review)
- Roberts v. Lewis, 441 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1968) (errors of highly prejudicial nature require reversal unless record affirmatively shows no harm)
- Karriman v. Orthopedic Clinic, 516 P.2d 534 (Okla. 1973) (standard for prejudice where errors are not inherently prejudicial)
- Bechtel v. State, 738 P.2d 559 (Okla. Crim. 1987) (prosecutor's opinion of guilt is highly prejudicial and may improperly influence jury)