Case law

Ex Parte Show

4 Okla. Crim. 416 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1910

But it should be clearly understood that this rule has no application to mere technical defects or omissions or to mere matters of form. … It must clearly appear therefrom that the act intended to be charged was not a crime.

Sanders v. State

556 P.2d 611 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 3, 1976

The question next becomes whether the evidence established premeditation. … State, supra, which set the Oklahoma Standard for qualifying a jury under the 1973 Murder Statute.

Phillips v. State

20 Okla. Crim. 415 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 21, 1922

Such witnesses are not expert witnesses, and no question of law arises as to their competency to testify after having qualified on the subject of knowledge. … That could have been the only purpose, and that clearly was the only probative effect, of the rebuttal evidence.

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.

Inklebarger v. State

8 Okla. Crim. 316 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 18, 1912

(Objected to by the defendants, for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, no proper foundation laid for the asking of the question, and the witness not shown himself qualified ,to testify. … established the guilt of the defendants.

Roulston v. State

307 P.2d 861 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1957

Dixie Colbert, the duly qualified and acting County Attorney, in and for Murray County, State of Oklahoma, and gives the District Court of Murray County and State of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that Jimmie Buford Edgman … This connection must clearly appear from the evidence. Whether any connection exists is a judicial question.

Lee v. State

637 P.2d 879 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1981

Traditionally, the motives for peremptory challenges of both the defense and the prosecution are immune from scrutiny, and purposeful discrimination cannot be assumed. Swain v. … This alleged discrepancy, standing alone, is not enough to counter the strong evidence establishing voluntariness.

Stucker v. State

493 P.2d 84 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 19, 1972

The facts of the present case clearly fall within the 4th and 5th exceptions in the foregoing syllabus from Epperson v. … State, Okl.Cr., 302 P.2d 502 (1956), this Court provided: “Constitutional provisions guaranteeing one immunity from an unlawful search and seizure is personal, and one accused will not be heard to object that the search of

Lightle v. State

5 Okla. Crim. 259 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1911

The evidence in the case amply sustains the allegations contained in the, information, viz., that this “Amber Mead” yas a substitute for beer, and that it came clearly and fully within the provisions of the statute whether … He could simply say, “I did not know or I had been misinformed as to a matter of fact,” and this would grant him perfect immunity from punishment.

Ward v. State

15 Okla. Crim. 150 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1918

This character of testimony was clearly error],' first, because it was hearsay; second, because there was no sufficient predicate laid.” … such place, if such a place be one resorted to by the public for that purpose, is established in the former opinions of this court.

Parrott v. State

522 P.2d 628 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 9, 1974

Warthen further testified that the defendant had asked him if Ed West and Dean Plank were qualified to lift fingerprints, and also stated that he (the defendant) did not think they were qualified and not being qualified they … This Court notes that the burden of establishing that the prospective jurors’ statements were prejudicial to his rights is placed upon the defendant. Rooks v. State, Okl.Cr., 417 P.2d 939 (1966).

Moore v. State

736 P.2d 161 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1987

She offered incriminating evidence against appellant after having been granted immunity. … Appellant fails to establish any of the elements listed above.

Taylor v. State

889 P.2d 319 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1995

Clearly, the DNA match evidence was pertinent to this inquiry and thus sufficiently relevant to have warranted admission. … These numbers clearly helped the jury appreciate the significance of the DNA match evidence.

Eaves v. State

61 O.B.A.J. 1792 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 29, 1990

(Emphasis added) This section clearly states that the tribal housing authority is a state agency. In Housing Authority of the Choctaw Nation v. … The statute was created pursuant to the federal HUD guidelines which sets forth in detail the procedures to qualify the housing authority for HUD funding.

Fry v. State

78 Okla. Crim. 299 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1944

It has been the established practice in this court in the early cases for the question of whether a confession is voluntary or involuntary to be submitted to the jury. The cases heretofore cited fully state this rule. … The facts in the instant case clearly demonstrate this.’ *317 “As there stated, it is not always necessary to secure a confession in order to secure a conviction.

Brown v. State

743 P.2d 133 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1987

The appellant, however, has made no showing establishing that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard. See Foster v. … The Ake decision clearly qualified its holding by stating that: This is not to say, of course, that the indigent defendant has a constitutional right to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to

State v. McCray

15 Okla. Crim. 316 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 1918

Wildman, the duly qualified and acting county attorney, in and for Creek county, state of Oklahoma, and upon his oath of office gives the district court of Creek county, state of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that William … Laws 1910, defines the term “maliciously,” when employed in the chapter relating to crimes against the property of another, to “import a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person, established either by proof or presumption

Shirley v. State

325 P.2d 92 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1958

The defense presented a number of witnesses to establish that defendant was not driving at the time of the arrest. … A thorough review of the records clearly reflects that the preponderance of the evidence is favorable to the defendant.

Berg v. State

29 Okla. Crim. 112 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 17, 1925

It is also contended that the law in question is unconstitutional for the reason that it does not clearly and explicitly set out the acts which constitute the offense. … Well, they stand for tearing down our flag and our form of government and establishing a form of government of their own, and worshipping the red flag instead of the American flag.”

Harper v. District Court of Oklahoma County

484 P.2d 891 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 21, 1971

When the accused is bound over to stand trial, the administrative procedures established to fulfill the statutory requirements for arraignment, trial, etc., become operative. … However, when the information is dismissed those procedures established for clerical direction, in the court clerk’s office, become operative.