Opinion

McDoulett v. State

  • 685 P.2d 978
  • 1984 OK CR 81
  • 1984 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 193
Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Filed
Jul 31, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Bussey
On the bench
Brett, Parks, Bussey
Cited by
29 cases

stating that "a cautionary instruction ... which advises the jury regarding the factors to be considered" is necessary in certain circumstances

How later courts described this case

  • stating that "a cautionary instruction ... which advises the jury regarding the factors to be considered" is necessary in certain circumstances
  • Oklahoma has adopted a Telfaire-]ike pattern jury instruction. This case held that in cases where the eyewitness identification is a critical element of the prosecution’s case and serious questions exist concerning the reliability of that identification, the cautionary instruction should be given

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent. I do not believe that a cautionary eyewitness identification should be given under any circumstances. If the identification is admissible, the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of the testifying witness is for the jury’s determination, and the giving of such an instruction tends to invade the province of the jury.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.