Case law

In Re the Habeas Corpus of Yoder

298 P.2d 1083 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 20, 1956

Under the free exercise of this rule, no right or immunity granted by the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, is invaded or impaired. * * * * * * “The writ here was issued in accordance with a form, no doubt … The trial court’s entire conduct in the proceedings accords with the well established reciprocal rules of comity between sovereigns, so clearly expressed in the case of Lunsford v. Hudspeth, supra.

In Re McNaught

1 Okla. Crim. 528 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1909

Administrative and remedial process may be changed from time to time, but only with due regard to the landmarks established for the protection of the citizen.’ … We believe this territorial law is not only repugnant, but is clearly and unquestionably in direct conflict with, and, as a matter of law, repealed by, section 17.

Perry v. Harper

307 P.2d 168 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 6, 1957

But, the facts in the case at bar are clearly distinguishable from the situation therein involved. … The fact that he may have committed two crimes gives him no immunity from prosecution of either.

Wagers v. State

370 P.2d 567 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 4, 1962

The facts clearly established a case of cold, premeditated murder. The sole questions raised on this appeal are, first, as to the lack of legal qualifications of the jury foreman, Donald A. … Napier, was not qualified as by law provided to serve on the jury.

Johnson v. State

10 Okla. Crim. 597 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 7, 1914

The information upon which the conviction is based is as follows: “In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma comes now Sam Hooker, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Oklahoma county, … From this quotation it is clearly to be seen that the California court was not considering, and did not refer to, the question here raised.

Stevens v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 216 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 27, 1951

The holding in this case is clearly contra to this contention of the defendant. … State, supra, this court defined what is meant by an abuse of discretion as follows: “By abuse of discretion is meant a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment: one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts

Cline v. State

57 Okla. Crim. 206 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 28, 1935

.” *211 At the close of all the evidence there was a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal for the reason that the evidence wholly fails to establish the offense charged. … A private residence, occupied as such, is immune from search, unless it, or some part of it, is used as a store, shop, *214 hotel, boarding bouse, or place for storage, or unless it is a place of public resort.

Bershears v. State

32 Okla. Crim. 180 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 15, 1925

Upon the record before us it clearly appears that the defendant could not have been harmed by the error complained of. … establishes his guilt, this court will not reverse the conviction upon any technicality or exception which did not deprive the defendant of a substantial right.”

Edwards v. State

544 P.2d 60 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 24, 1975

We understand the opinion preferred in Hitch to mean that both where the evidence is material to the issue of guilt or innocence with respect to the charge against the accused, and where it is clearly a matter involving the … Brady , the Supreme Court, ruling that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment . ,” in effect qualified

Byers v. Territory

1 Okla. Crim. 698 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 29, 1909

It is the fixed purpose of this court to carry out the spirit of this statute, and when a defendant has been properly charged with an offense and fairly tried and the evidence clearly establishes his guilt, this court will … That appellant shot and killed the deceased cannot be questioned; that he shot him under circumstances which establish a homicide upon express malice is also evident, if murder upon express malice can be established by the

Fitzgerald v. State

69 O.B.A.J. 4307 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1998

trial court must be allowed to ask life-qualifying questions after the defendant’s request. 52 ¶ 32 On March 23, 1995, Fitzgerald filed a Motion to Life Qualify Of [sic] the Jury. … Payment is pursuant to procedures established by the governing board of the court fund. . Ake, 470 U.S. at 78-80 , 105 S.Ct. at 1093-1094 ; Rogers, 890 P.2d at 966 . . Ake, 470 U.S. at 82 , 105 S.Ct. at 1096 . .

Dennis v. State

879 P.2d 1227 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 23, 1994

Dallas was properly qualified as an expert in the area of fire investigation. His testimony concerned both facts and hypothetical possibilities supported by evidence. … There must be evidence of acts or circumstances that tend clearly to point to another, rather than the accused.” Woodruff v. State, 846 P.2d 1124, 1137 (Okl. Cr.1993).

Kizer v. State

64 Okla. Crim. 222 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 21, 1938

This has become the established practice in this jurisdiction since the rule was first announced in the case of Koontz v. … The doctrine established in the Koontz Case has been adhered to in the recent case of Shepherd v. State, 17 Okla.

Hunter v. State

740 P.2d 1206 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 30, 1987

It is evidence which suffices to establish the fact unless rebutted or until overcome by other evidence. … Due process clearly requires the State to prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).

Pearson v. State

556 P.2d 1025 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1976

However, George Kriz was granted immunity in exchange for his testimony, and the charge against Linda Pearson was dismissed prior to trial. As a result, the defendant was the sole conspirator tried and convicted. … The act clearly states that wherever any wire or oral communication is intercepted, it may not be used as evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in any court of the United States, any State, or any political

Harkins v. State

14 Okla. Crim. 440 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 4, 1918

The court now is of the opinion that the defendant .should have the right to have two physicians to make such examination as they may deem necessary in order to qualify themselves properly to give this testimony. … In this case a physical examination was had within 48 hours of the time of the commission of the alleged offense by two reputable physicians of Nowata county in the presence of three women, and the examination thus had .clearly

Slaughter v. State

69 O.B.A.J. 87 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 1997

This Court has defined “abuse of discretion” as “clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented in support of and against the application.” R.J.D. v. … One of the terms of this agreement was that Johnson would be immune from prosecution for assisting Appellant if she agreed to cooperate with authorities in their investigation.

State v. Gillaspie

11 Okla. Crim. 631 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 17, 1915

Henry, the duly elected, qualified, and acting county attorney of Greer county, state of Oklahoma, and in behalf of, and in the name of, the state of Oklahoma, presents in *633 and to the district court of said Greer county … We are of opinion that the testimony was not only sufficient to warrant the court in submitting the cause to the jury by proper instructions, but clearly establishes absolute guilt of this charge.

Bowie v. State

816 P.2d 1143 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1991

We find no inconsistencies between that ruling and the immunity agreement with Britt. … Such is clearly contrary to the purpose of 22 O.S. § 1347, et seq.

Snow v. Turner

406 P.2d 509 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 6, 1965

There are well established *514 exceptions to this fundamental right. … It is well established that in order to benefit from our statutes securing a speedy trial, the accused must demand trial; if he does not make such demand he waives his right.