Appellate panel hears arguments over denial of judicial diversion for driver in I-40 fatal crash

Scott Jones, attorney for the appellant, told an appellate panel that the trial court failed to weigh the full set of factors required for judicial diversion when it denied his client, referred to in the record as Miss Hodge, the relief. The underlying crash occurred Sept. 4, 2021, at about 3:40 a.m.; vehicle crash data in the record shows the defendant was driving about 101 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone and a motorcyclist was killed.

Jones said the defense submitted a sentencing memorandum documenting Hodge’s lack of prior criminal history, post-incident participation in Mothers Against Drunk Driving-related activities, volunteer work with Second Harvest Food Bank and psychological evaluation materials. Jones argued the trial judge did not “weigh the factors” set out for diversion and instead relied on comparisons to other cases to deny diversion, a decision Jones asked the appellate court to review de novo or remand for further explanation.

Katherine Redding, representing the state, countered that the trial court did address the common-law diversion factors in the record and appropriately emphasized deterrence and public safety. Redding said the stipulated facts show the defendant fled the scene, refused field sobriety testing and refused a blood draw, and that the high speed and the frequency of similar serious crashes on the Interstate 40 corridor justified the court’s focus on deterrence. She told the panel that “the trial court did consider all of the common law factors” and that the denial of diversion should be upheld unless the record shows an abuse of discretion.

Defense counsel repeatedly pressed the panel that the sentencing entry’s language—quoting the trial judge that he could not “in good conscience” grant diversion—was not accompanied by a structured weighing that would allow appellate review. Jones argued the trial court’s reliance on other recent cases with different facts amounted to punishment for achieving a negotiated plea and precedent in the same courtroom rather than an individualized balancing of diversion factors.

The state told the panel that comparison to other incidents in the vicinity was relevant to deterrence and public interest, and that the court’s emphasis on the facts of the offense (high speed, death of a motorcyclist, and the defendant’s departure from the scene) provided substantial evidence supporting the denial. Redding also noted the absence of sobriety-test results or blood evidence but pointed to vehicle crash data and the defendant’s refusal to cooperate as part of the record.

Neither side reported a final ruling at the hearing recorded in this transcript. Counsel debated whether the appellate court can or should conduct a de novo review on the existing record or remand for the trial court to expand its explanation; both sides acknowledged the appellate court has the authority to review and either affirm or remand. The hearing concluded without an announced decision and the court clerk adjourned the docket.