Case Review: State v. Hudson (2022 OK CR 28)

As followers of the Court of Criminal Appeals are completely non-shocked about, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals took away more rights of Defendants when deciding State v. Hudson.

Experienced criminal defense lawyers have filed “Motions to Quash” in misdemeanor cases where there is serious doubt as to the crime alleged. In felony cases, these motions are generally filed after a preliminary hearing. In misdemeanors, they have been filed anytime prior to trial based on rulings such as Young v. State, 1994 OK CR 25 where prior Courts have ruled that Title 22, sections 493 through 510 apply to both felonies and misdemeanors, including the section dealing with Motions to Quash. Unpublished Court of Criminal Appeals opinions over the last several years have also agreed that MTQ’s could be filed in misdemeanor cases based on “Young”, yet this court, ignoring its own cases and precedent, overrules all those other cases in order to take the ability away from judges to get rid of stinker cases and instead force a Defendant to a trial to assert a deficiency in evidence. The real result of this is that more bad cases will be pled out (since the risk of a trial is often overwhelming), and more innocent people will be convicted of crimes, which, of course, is of no concern to the Court of Criminal Appeals (and hasn’t been for decades). Sadly, with the current makeup of the Court of Criminal Appeals, cases like this are the rule, and will continue to be so for some time. C’est la vie.