IN THE MATTER OF K. H.
2021 OK 33
| Okla. | 2021Background
- In Aug. 2018 Midwest City police found R.H. (age 9) hidden in a washing machine with extensive bruising; Parents were arrested and charged with felony child abuse. State removed Parents’ younger children and filed an amended petition alleging the children were deprived and seeking immediate termination of parental rights for heinous and shocking abuse to a sibling (R.H.).
- Father earlier stipulated/no-contest to deprived allegations and the court adjudicated the children deprived as to Father; the court later adjudicated deprivation as to Mother during the same proceeding.
- At the May 2019 jury trial on termination, the State elicited testimony and admitted State’s Exhibit No. 1 (the criminal information and affidavits) over Parents’ motion in limine and continuing objections; the court also gave Instruction No. 8, which quoted the amended petition and expressly referenced the pending criminal charges.
- The jury found by clear and convincing evidence that each parent committed heinous and shocking abuse (based largely on injuries to R.H.) and entered judgments terminating parental rights to K.H., C.H., E.H., and C.H.
- On appeal and rehearing, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that admitting evidence of the pending criminal charges and giving Instruction No. 8 (which named the charges) were reversible error because the charges were not relevant to the statutory elements and their admission/instruction was inherently prejudicial; the deprivation adjudication remains undisturbed and the termination judgments were reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of pending criminal-information and affidavits | Evidence of pending criminal charges was irrelevant to the termination elements, highly prejudicial, and denied a fair trial | Charges and arrest are factual background relevant to witnesses and not unduly prejudicial; exhibit is a neutral fact | Reversed: Exhibit and questioning about charges failed §2401 relevancy and were unfairly prejudicial under §2403; admission was inherently prejudicial and reversible |
| Jury Instruction No. 8 referencing criminal charges | Quoting the petition (including charges) misled jurors and unfairly prejudiced Parents | Instruction tracked OUJI-Juv-2.2 and simply summarized the petition; disclaimer in instruction mitigated harm | Reversed: Court erred in including the criminal-charge allegation in the statement of the case; it should have been deleted |
| Whether error was harmless (sufficiency / prejudice) | Introduction of charges was likely decisive; verdict would differ without it | Overwhelming admissible evidence of heinous and shocking abuse made any error harmless | Majority: error not harmless — State could not affirmatively show no harm; reversal ordered. Dissent: would apply non-constitutional harmless-error test and affirm given overwhelming evidence |
| Role of deprivation adjudication and relevance of charges to elements | Charges are not material to statutory elements (adjudication and abuse/heinousness are) | Petition included charges; background facts were probative of unfitness | Held: Adjudication duty belongs to court; the pending criminal information was not material to proving the statutory elements and therefore was irrelevant to the jury’s termination determination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M. & R.W., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (parental liberty interest and due-process safeguards in termination proceedings)
- 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) (distinguishing inherently prejudicial errors from other errors)
- Roberts v. Lewis, 441 P.2d 350 (Okla. 1968) (prejudice presumed where highly prejudicial matters were presented to the jury)
- Mills v. Grotheer, 957 P.2d 540 (Okla. 1998) (trial court discretion in relevance and prejudice rulings)
- In re T.T.S., 373 P.3d 1022 (Okla. 2015) (procedural/jury-instruction errors in termination cases can be reversible if they substantially violate rights)
- Bechtel v. State, 738 P.2d 559 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987) (warning about the prosecutor’s opinions carrying government imprimatur)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (government or prosecutor opinions may improperly sway juries)