The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has ordered a new review of Edmond Police Department Lt. Jennifer Haddock’s motion for “stand your ground” immunity in the fatal 2023 shooting of her brother at their mother’s apartment.
Oklahoma County District Attorney Vicki Behenna is prosecuting Haddock on a charge of first-degree manslaughter. District Court Judge Susan Stallings rejected Haddock’s stand your ground claim in January 2025, finding that Sean Haddock was a “tenant at will” who had requested that his sister leave the apartment. Stallings also pointed to a request by their mother, Marcia Ricketson, that Jennifer Haddock remove her pistol from the residence as indication that she was potentially trespassing. Stallings ruled that Jennifer Haddock “arguably” had no right to refuse those requests.
On Nov. 13, the Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed Stallings’ findings and remanded the case back to the district judge for additional review of the stand-your-ground defense. Judge Robert L. Hudson authored the opinion, raising issue with two particular aspects of Stallings’ findings: that Sean Haddock was a “tenant at will” of his mother’s apartment and that Jennifer Haddock had failed to show she was not engaged in “unlawful activity” the day she shot her brother while off-duty.
“Under the total circumstances presented, the district court abused its discretion in finding that [Jennifer Haddock] failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that she was not engaged in unlawful activity,” Hudson wrote. “The record shows unequivocally that [she] was not engaged in unlawful activity at the time of the homicide. This same evidence, relatedly, showed that [she] was in a place she had a right to be.”
Hudson found that several aspects of Stallings’ order were “contradicted by” witness testimony.
“By focusing its analysis upon [Jennifer Haddock’s] purported unlawful presence, [Haddock] contends the district court did not address the remaining factors, particularly whether [she] was attacked in a place she had a right to be, and whether [she] reasonably believed it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. We agree,” Hudson wrote. “On remand, the district court shall analyze the remaining factors by weighing the evidence, resolving any factual disputes as to [Jennifer Haddock’s] use of force and making the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to resolve the immunity claim.”
Hudson: Jennifer Haddock was ‘scared for her life’
The fatal 2023 confrontation occurred when Jennifer Haddock arrived to help her mother, Marcia Ricketson, move out of her Edmond apartment. Sean Haddock was also present, and while he was previously a full-time resident alongside his mother, he had moved out of the apartment long before his death, the Court of Criminal Appeals ruling outlines.
Sean Haddock occasionally returned to ask for money, to borrow his mother’s car or to stay the night. He did not have a key to the apartment or his name on the lease, according to the ruling. An argument over ownership of a furniture set in the apartment escalated into a shouting match that Jennifer Haddock said made her fear for her safety.
Ricketson testified in December 2024 that she did ask Jennifer Haddock to remove her handgun bag from the apartment, since Sean Haddock had become “fixated” on the weapon during the confrontation with his sister. J. Patrick Quillian, Jennifer Haddock’s attorney, argued in his appeal of Stallings’ decision that Ricketson’s testimony was mischaracterized by Stallings and that asking for the weapon to be put away owing to Sean Haddock’s fixation did not equate to Jennifer Haddock being asked to leave.
On multiple occasions during her December testimony, Jennifer Haddock said she had never seen her brother as irate as he was the day she shot him. An armed forces veteran, former university wrestler and rugby player, the 36-year-old Sean Haddock was described as muscular and stout, easily capable of overpowering his sister in the apartment’s close confines. Sean Haddock’s history of violence and drug abuse was also attested to by Jennifer Haddock and other family members.
According to court records, a toxicology report showed fentanyl and methamphetamine in Sean Haddock’s system at the time of his death, potentially contributing to his aggression. The day before his death, he had appeared in Oklahoma County District Court on a possession of methamphetamine charge filed after he was found passed out in his car in a McDonald’s parking lot.
When Jennifer Haddock produced her handgun during the fatal incident months later, Sean Haddock grabbed the barrel of the weapon, placed it against his forehead and shouted at his sister to shoot him, according to court documents.
In his opinion, Hudson wrote that Jennifer Haddock was “scared for her life” during the confrontation. Hudson said there was no evidence Jennifer Haddock was a trespasser in the apartment that day, owing to the fact she had been invited to help her mother move.
Hudson critiqued Stallings’ decision to reference an Edmond municipal ordinance about tenancy at will “because the state failed to properly introduce the relevant ordinance into the record.” Hudson also disagreed with Stallings’ interpretation of Rickets’ testimony that both siblings “were invited guests at her apartment at the time of the homicide,” meaning Sean Haddock had no standing to tell his sister to leave.
“There is no evidence that Sean was anything other than an invited guest to the apartment that day,” Hudson wrote. “Ricketson testified that she did not hear Sean (Haddock) tell [Jennifer Haddock] to leave the apartment because he lived there. According to Ricketson, ‘If he had, he’s lying.'”
By the same token, Hudson ruled that Jennifer Haddock had a right to be in the apartment and defend herself if she feared for her life.
“[Jennifer Haddock] was an invited guest of Ricketson, who was in a place she had the right to be at the time of the homicide,” Hudson wrote. “Ricketson never withdrew her consent for [Jennifer Haddock’s] presence inside the apartment and never asked her to leave.”
Hudson did not state whether the Court of Criminal Appeals believes Haddock should be immune from prosecution in the killing, which remains a question for the district court. Oklahoma’s “stand your ground” statute states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.
Read against Oklahoma’s “stand your ground” statute, Hudson’s opinion implies a belief that Jennifer Haddock acted within the law. The case will return to Oklahoma County District Court for further analysis of whether Jennifer Haddock qualifies for immunity from prosecution. If Jennifer Haddock is not found immune from prosecution, the case could head to jury trial if no other resolution is reached.
Read Judge Robert Hudson’s full opinion
