If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Muskogee, Oklahoma criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with one count of child abuse in Indian Country.


On or about March 12, 2020, within the Eastern District of Oklahoma, in Indian Country, the defendant, Kaira Leigh Wilson, an Indian, did willfully and maliciously cause and threaten harm to the health, safety, and welfare of K.M., a child under the age of eighteen, by willfully and maliciously injuring K.M., in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1151, 1153, and Title 21, Oklahoma Statutes, Section 843.5(A).

* * *


An indictment must set forth the elements of the offense charged, put the defendant on fair notice of the charges against which she must defend, and enable the defendant to assert a double jeopardy defense. United States v. Dashney, 117 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 1997). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b) allows a defendant to seek dismissal on the grounds that an indictment lacks specificity. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(iii). However, “[c]hallenging an indictment is not a means of testing the strength or weakness of the government's case, or the sufficiency of the government's evidence.” United States v. Todd, 446 F.3d 1062, 1067 (10th Cir. 2006). “It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself, as long as those words of themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the [offense] intended to be punished.” United States v. Powell, 767 F.3d 1026, 1030 (10th Cir. 2014). “[W]here the indictment quotes the language of a statute and includes the date, place, and nature of illegal activity, it need not go further and allege in detail the factual proof that will be relied upon to support the charges.” United States v. Redcorn, 528 F.3d 727, 733 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted). “An indictment need only meet minimal constitutional standards; we determine the sufficiency of an indictment by practical rather than technical considerations.” Powell, 767 F.3d at 1030.

Outcome: Motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: