# Williams v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · July 15, 1982 · 648 P.2d 843

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551602

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant, v. the STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 15, 1982
- **Citations:** 648 P.2d 843; 1982 OK CR 107; 1982 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 305
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bussey
- **Judges:** Cornish, Brett, Bussey
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551602

## Opinion text

BUSSEY, Judge,
specially concurring:
In Roberts, supra, we stated:
Although this Court has referred to the Pennsylvania test in Moreau v. State, supra, and Hall v. State, Okl.Cr. 565 P.2d 57 (1977), we have never expressly adopted it, but, to the contrary, rejected arguments that the facts in Moreau and Hall required the giving of such an instruction. The facts in the instant case do not require our adoption or rejection of the test in Kloiber for the reason that the *846 evidence, like the evidence in Moreau and Hall , is positive, and the inconsistencies at all-to consider whether a cautionary instruction should be given. Some jurisdictions decline to give the cautionary instruction for the reason that it might tend to invade the province of the jury. We await a proper case in which to address this issue.
The facts in the instant case, like those in Roberts, do not present a proper case in which to address this issue. There being no error which would justify modification or reversal, I concur in the affirmance of the judgment and sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9551602. Public record. Not legal advice.