Recent Changes in Oklahoma Criminal Law
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals removes the requirement that there be new evidence before prosecutors can refile a judge dismissed case. I’m Oklahoma Attorney James Wirth and I’m talking about a new case here, Halliburton v. State of Oklahoma 2024 OKCR7.
A little bit of background information. If you’re talking about a criminal prosecution in a felony case, the defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing before you get to trial. At the preliminary hearing, the state is required to prove by probable cause that a crime was committed and that you committed it, only upon proving that does the case get bound over on the trial essentially to go to trial.
What Happens When Evidence Is Insufficient?
But what if the state does not bring sufficient evidence, if they miss an element or something else, then it is the duty of the magistrate judge handling that prelim to dismiss the case. Then what happens if the state wants to refile that case? Well, that goes back to a case decided back in 1973, Chase v. State, 1973 OKCR453.
In that case, the preliminary hearing was put on, the state failed to meet their burden, and the magistrate dismissed the case. The state made notice of intent to appeal, and then after that, they exhumed a body trying to find additional evidence, and then they requested permission to refile that case.
Preventing Forum Shopping
And ultimately, the court in Chase held one, no, we’ve lost jurisdiction once we already decided this and it’s up on appeal. You’d have to handle that in appeal, and the appeal is not going to take new evidence. And then two, they made rules regarding when the state may refile the case after dismissal at a preliminary hearing or a motion to quash. And what it says is that the state needs to clearly show that it has acquired new evidence since the dismissal. We stated in that case that new or additional evidence does not mean that which was known to the state at the time of the first preliminary, or that which could have been easily acquired by it.
So there has to be new evidence that they didn’t know about and could not have known about before, and it notes that it needs to go back before the same magistrate who originally dismissed the case, and consideration by another magistrate is forbidden unless the first be unavailable.
Updates in Criminal Procedures
So what they’re trying to do here is trying to prevent forum shopping, a circumstance where the state puts on a preliminary hearing before one judge, judge doesn’t like it, dismisses it, no problem, the state will just refile and go to another judge. They don’t like it, fine, we’ll just refile to a third judge, and they can forum shop until they get the results that they want, meanwhile the defendant’s having to keep being in jeopardy and hiring new defense counsel even though the state has not actually proven anything. That’s what they’re trying to avoid here. This is the law back in 1973, okay.
So fast forward a couple of years and we’ve got some updates in the criminal procedures in the state of Oklahoma. A lot of new statutes, a lot of new updates, and this law is from 1990, which regards a motion to quash. So if you have a preliminary hearing, and it is bound over, but you don’t think there’s sufficient evidence that the defense files a motion to quash, alleging it should be dismissed because there’s insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing.
The Tilly Case and New Evidence Requirements
And this statute notes that the defense can file that, and then the district judge can dismiss that case. But what it says is, in order to set aside an indictment or information on judgment for the defendant on a motion to quash for insufficient evidence as proven in this section shall not be a bar to further prosecution for the same offense. Okay, so that says if it gets kicked, that’s not a bar to future prosecution.
So how does the court interpret that given what was previously has always been the law in the state of Oklahoma where there has to be new evidence? Well, that’s where we have the Tilly case. The Tilly case came out three years later in 1993, and it says, well, no, you still have to have new evidence and you still can’t form shop. You essentially got to play by the rules and show that’s evidence that you previously could not have had.
So you’ve got good faith, good reason to have that done. So that’s 1993 and that brings us to the present. We’ve been operating under that 1990 statute and that case law this entire time, but now suddenly we’ve got a different decision on it.
Halliburton Case and Recent Developments
So that brings us to the Halliburton case, decided March 21st of 2024 and the findings by that court. So the court notes that whether the granting of a motion to quash after the state’s presentation of evidence at the preliminary hearing bars for the prosecution for the same defense without the state showing new evidence after the dismissal, as there can be no prejudice in this case if there is no bar to prosecution.
Okay, so that’s saying that’s the issue that they have to decide. So they’re saying, well, when we read that statute, it says it shall not be a bar to prosecution for the same offense. However, it does not address the issue that the case law has always been it’s required to have new evidence.
So they find that the plain language of that statute means the legislature did not intend to prohibit refiling of the same offense. They overrule the Chase v. State Decision, the Jones v. State Decision and the Tilly Court and say that from this point forward, the state is not required to provide any proof of new evidence, no mention of having to go to the same magistrate, and no requirement to show that the new evidence, if they have it, was something they could not have produced before.
Implications for Defendants
So essentially, based on this decision now, nothing’s new in the law. The law hasn’t changed since 1990, interpretations of that law have been in place since 1993. Prior interpretations of the prior law have been consistent with us this entire time, but now out of nowhere, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reinterprets it to say that the state can file after the judge dismisses the case without any requirements to meet.
They can refile it, doesn’t say they can refile it 100 times if they have to. They can go to 100 different magistrates if they have to. There’s nothing that they have in here that would prevent that from being done. So if it goes the defense’s way, then the state can refile. If it goes the state’s way, the defendant has no recourse.
That’s kind of the lay of the law right now, it’s just another example of what we’re seeing over and over again from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals where things are being twisted and put more in the interest of the state and away from the interest of the people and the defendants.
Schedule a Low-Cost Initial Strategy Session
If you’re dealing with a circumstance where you’re being prosecuted in the state of Oklahoma, you’re going to want to talk to an attorney about the current state of law and how it’s relevant to your case and come up with an actual plan for defense. Contact an attorney at my office and go online to makelaweasy.com.
