Case law

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.

Edwards v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 11 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 1951

But clearly, such is not the situation confronting us herein. He further relies on the case of Padgett v. State, 90 Okla. … It Is an- established custom relied upon in every day transactions with the grocer, druggist, filling station operator, and all other sellers of merchandise to rely upon the brands which appear upon packages and cartons.

Howard v. State

561 P.2d 125 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 4, 1977

In reversing the defendant’s conviction, this Court found the facts in the case clearly established that the witness was an accomplice — i. e., indictable — for the offense with which the defendant was charged. … In the case at bar, the record clearly establishes that no question of ultimate fact had been decided in either of the previous trials; neither had Judge Brock nor Judge Wheeler decided the issue of severance as a matter

FUSTON v. STATE

470 P.3d 306 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 5, 2020

An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue or a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly … Hall , 572 U.S. at 704 . ¶7 I concur in the result here because the State established clear and convincing evidence that Appellant had a qualified cut-off level IQ score of 81, and the remaining record strongly indicates

Ex Parte Gudenoge

2 Okla. Crim. 110 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 1909

It is apparent from t-he language of section 27 of the Bill of Bights that the immunity therein granted to persons called to testify contemplates a charge against some person or corporation with a violation of the law; and … From a consideration of the language of the constitutional provisions in the Bill of Eights referred to, and section 4 of the so-called “enforcement act,” we are clearly of opinion that the petitioner was entitled to refuse

Ricketts v. State

23 Okla. Crim. 267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1923

The history, of the constitutional provision referred to clearly de *271 monstrates that it was not intended to reach a case like this. Story’s Constitutional Limitations, § 1788. … Wigmore says: *273 “Looking back at tbe history of the privilege (ante, § 2250) and the spirit of the struggle by which its establishment came about, the object of the protection seems plain.

McGlumphy v. State

538 P.2d 1097 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 14, 1975

Potter, using Potter’s driver’s license as identification in passing the items in various establishments, the location of which she could not remember. … We find that the evidence of defendant’s fingerprints on the checks sufficed to establish the fact of possession, from which could arise a presumption of intent and knowledge. This rule was set forth clearly in State v.

Ex Parte Wilson

7 Okla. Crim. 610 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 29, 1912

Wilson was then and there the duly qualified and acting election inspector at and for the precinct aforesaid;, and one W. P. … construed as allowing indiscriminate voting, regardless of party affiliation, we are of the opinion that, if such an interpretation could be sustained, then the provisions of the sections referred to would, we think, be clearly

Fulkerson v. State

17 Okla. Crim. 103 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 31, 1920

The intent, therefore, clearly appears from the context of the statute and proclamation that said laws should be effective on the 16th day of May, 1913. … It clearly and distinctly states in a nutshell the policy controlling the decisions of this court established by the Legislature in the enactment of the provisions of section 6005, Revised Laws 1910.

Smith v. State

62 O.B.A.J. 2896 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 20, 1991

The authorities on which appellant relies are clearly distinguishable. In those cases, the witnesses had been paid informers, Orebo v. United States, 293 F.2d 747 (9th Cir.1961); United States v. … Appellant now attacks the admission of evidence to support these aggravating circumstances and the sufficiency of the evidence to establish them. A.

Harris v. State

17 Okla. Crim. 69 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 2, 1918

from the former opinions of this court it should have been treated as a plea in bar unless from the face of said plea it clearly appeared as a matter of law that said plea was insufficient. … defendant had theretofore been placed in jeopardy for the same offense charged in this information, then the court should have submitted the issue to a jury under proper instructions, unless the evidence in support of the plea established

Dix v. State

15 Okla. Crim. 559 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 1, 1919

This action removed the disqualification that otherwise existed against her being a qualified witness in *570 behalf of her codefendant, Mrs. Dix. After the dismissal of the state’s case against Mrs. … Baustert, expect this court to reverse a judgment of conviction against her based on evidence which clearly establishes her guilt for the sole purpose of permitting that to be done which she already had the opportunity to

Miller v. State

313 P.3d 934 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 6, 2013

Unequivocal Jurors 154 This Court recognizes that when a prospective juror's responses to trial court questioning (and on any questionnaire) clearly establish that he or she is ineligible to serve in a capital case-because … Nevertheless, because the current state of the law so clearly establishes that it violated the Confrontation Clause to allow Dr. Distefano to give voice to the analysis, findings, and conclusions of Dr.

Jones v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 659 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1999

The opinion ignores established precedent and frequently employs twisted logic in reaching a decision which is clearly wrong. Therefore, I dissent. ¶ 2 In Morgan v. … During that time, defense asked many of the jurors life-qualifying questions.

Ex Parte Small

92 Okla. Crim. 101 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 26, 1950

Respondent points out that the ordinance in question is not attacked on the ground that it is a revenue-producing measure or that it is not within the power of the city to establish a garbage disposal and DDT spraying system … “The immunity from imprisonment for debt contemplated and provided in said Section 20 of the Constitution has application to, and is limited to, debts arising out of contract. Bray v.

Taylor v. State

248 P.3d 362 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 2011

Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 , (2006), in Proposition Three, the Opinion states that "[the relevant focus is clearly on what is happening to the hearsay declarant when the statements are made … . ¶ 5 However, it would appear the first question that should be asked in this type of evidentiary issue is whether the Statement even qualifies as "hearsay," ie was the statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted

Ex Parte Davis

82 Okla. Crim. 444 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1946

by extrinsic evidence, and the burden is upon one who challenges the ordinance imposing it to establish its unreasonableness and invalidity.” … “Ordinances imposing license taxes under the power to regulate are prima facie valid, and the unreasonableness of the exactions must be made clearly to appear, and they must be obviously and largely beyond wliat is needed

Box v. State

541 P.2d 262 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 1, 1975

Defendant’s next assignment of error urges that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to strike the testimony of Officer Lippman for the reason that he was not qualified as an expert to identify that … This rule is particularly applicable where accused’s guilt is clearly established by the evidence.” We believe this to be applicable in the instant case.

In Re Swaim

66 Okla. Crim. 30 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 7, 1939

hogs conducted in establishment 20-Q storage quarters located in building 2, establishment 20-Q as provided for in said license. … That the meaning of “post mortem examinations of hyper immune hogs conducted in establishment 20-Q storage quarters located in building 2, establishment 20-Q” is that Fidelity Laboratories, Inc., was authorized by said license

Davenport v. State

806 P.2d 655 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 13, 1991

PARKS, Presiding Judge, dissenting: The threshold test for determining the admissibility of testimony by a qualified expert is whether the scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact … Scientific evidence “must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in a particular field ...” Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46 , 293 F. 1013 (1923).