Case law

Jones v. State

660 P.2d 634 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 1983

The defendant argues that the doctor was not qualified to testify as an expert on prosthetic devices. … The State clearly proved all of the alleged aggravating circumstances.

Nunley v. State

601 P.2d 459 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1979

Roy Black further testified that at the time he “agreed to work for the Sheriff’s Department” he had been granted immunity from prosecution. … Further, the evidence was clearly insufficient for the trial court to rule as a matter of law that the witness was a feigned accomplice.

Lemke v. State

56 Okla. Crim. 1 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 16, 1934

This, in connection with the fact that after the application was denied defendant announced ready for trial, shows clearly there was no abuse of discretion. … Under this assignment, complaint is also made that the court erred in permitting the witness Steinberg, qualified as a nonexpert, to testify in his opinion defendant was sane.

Armstrong v. State

53 Okla. Crim. 53 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 1931

It has been uniformly held that, where instruments bear marks or numbers which require explanation, one qualified to do so may explain the apparent meaning of such marks or notations. … “It is clearly admissible to' establish a usage or custom by witnesses who are experienced in the transactions involved and can testify to the facts constituting the usage and custom.” 27 E. C. L. § 43, p. 198.

State v. Bezdicek

73 O.B.A.J. 2122 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2002

If statutes were construed strictly and in conformity with what they actually say, Legislative intent could be more easily established and perplexity and confusion in the law eliminated. 394 P.2d at 543-544 . ¶ 9 In the majority … electors of a county; establishing numerical signature requirements for the sufficiency of such petitions; allowing the Attorney General to convene and conduct grand juries, upon the filing of a verified application to investigate

Nipp v. State

374 P.2d 624 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1962

The appointment was an unqualified appointment to represent the accused and is clearly distinguishable from the appointment made by the court in Powell v. … Nor is the appointment qualified as was the appointment in Dumas v.

Hunter v. State

375 P.2d 357 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1962

This situation is clearly distinguishable from the case of Booker v. State, Okl.Cr., 312 P.2d 189 . … It has been contended that such a law invades the privileges and immunities of the citizens, (Graham v.

Garnsey v. State

4 Okla. Crim. 547 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 1, 1910

the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities … Without attempting to examine in detail the opinions in the various cases, in our judgment it clearly results from them that they substantially rested upon the proposition that where territory was a part of the United States

Ridgeway v. State

553 P.2d 511 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 2, 1976

This assertion is not warranted from this authority cited and is clearly erroneous. … The term ‘patently’ means clearly and obviously.

Ex Parte Wilson

6 Okla. Crim. 451 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1911

“Now, can it be contended with any show of reason that the framers of.the Constitution intended to leave the question of the retailing of liquor in a given district to a vote of the majority of the qualified voters in the … How vain it would be, then, for the framers- of the Constitution, to thus take from the Legislature the power to regulate the retailing of -liquor and place that question within the competency of the qualified voters, and

Wackerly v. State

71 O.B.A.J. 2132 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 11, 2000

Appellant's argument is misplaced as Oklahoma statutes clearly require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of a probability that Appellant would commit criminal acts of violence which would constitute … However he urges this Court to depart from this established precedent for the reasons stated by Judge Chapel in his dissent in Paxton v.

McKee v. State

372 P.2d 243 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 1962

Lowbeer was not qualified as a ballistics expert. In support of this contention, the defendant cites Price v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 499 , 101 P. 1036 . … in chief, but which is clearly in rebuttal of a material defense, of testimony introduced in defense, does not render the same inadmissible in rebuttal.”

Sisson v. State

404 P.2d 55 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 22, 1964

In this connection, the offer to sell having been made in Seminole County, Oklahoma, it was sufficient to clearly establish venue in Seminole County. … Hence, it clearly appears that the stock sold Mr.

State v. Thomason

538 P.2d 1080 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1975

. ****** “The history of the privilege . . . especially the spirit of the struggle by which its establishment came about — suggests that the privilege is limited to testimonial disclosures. … The history of the constitutional provision referred to clearly demonstrates that it was not intended to reach a case like this. . . .

Glass v. State

361 P.2d 230 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 15, 1961

This evidence herein clearly established the fact of the crime charged, of changing a voter’s ballot, and the plea of guilty in case No. 3263 established identity of the defendant in this case. … S uch is clearly not the case herein, but the defendant assumes the evidence is the same.

Underwood v. State

659 P.2d 948 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 24, 1983

(Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings) because he did not want to grant her immunity from prosecution as he interpreted the act to require. 2 Appellant maintains that … While the State’s effort did not reach the “pinnacle of investigatory inquiry,” it was clearly not a “last minute, mad-dash effort,” and was sufficient to sustain the State’s good faith effort. Grizzle v.

Jenkins v. State

11 Okla. Crim. 168 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 7, 1914

Turnbull, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Bryan county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the county court of Bryan county and state of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that the above-named defendant, … Instruction No. 2 clearly indicates that fact.

Bond v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 696 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1913

Some of it was only remotely connected with the chargé under investigation, but we. cannot say it did not tend to .establish a conspiracy to corrupt the officers of Pottawatomie county, and thereby secure immunity from prosecutions … The jury was positively instructed to disregard the statements made by the court, and the different duties of the court and jury were clearly stated.

Frederick v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2687 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 30, 1995

Here, that wood is the well-established principle of law governing attorney competency. … The failure of counsel to act in a timely fashion to obtain the additional expert is clearly a trial error, subject to harmless error analysis. Accordingly, I must dissent to that portion of the opinion. .

Shinn v. Oklahoma City

59 Okla. Crim. 433 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 5, 1936

905, 906 , 155 Pac. 364 , a statute regulating the persons engaged in lending money, providing for license and exempting banks from its application, the Supreme Court of Oregon held does not violate the “privileges and immunities … It requires no argument to establish the truth that this is a proper exercise of the police power.” In re Home Discount Co. (D. C.) 147 F. 538 ; City Council of Augusta v. Clark & Co., 124 Ga. 254 , 52 S.