Case law

Hunter v. State

10 Okla. Crim. 119 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 17, 1913

business of the court and the law is to find out whether he has been guilty of the wrong or crime; that the state and the complainant have a right to the truth; and that this high and solemn duty of doing justice and of establishing … “If this be the proper construction of the exception, the present case is clearly within it.

Matter of MWN

590 P.2d 692 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 8, 1979

However, the cases clearly hold that at the preliminary examination the State need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of the crime charged. [1] All that is required is that the State present sufficient … the commission of a crime and to establish sufficient cause to believe that the defendant committed it.

Ex Parte Herrin

67 Okla. Crim. 104 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 4, 1939

American Jurisprudence, vol. 7, pp. 613, 614, states the modern rule clearly, in the following language: “It is well established that professions or trades operating directly on the person and thereby directly affecting the … Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community.’ Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 565 , 31 S.

Cory v. State

543 P.2d 565 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 25, 1975

He hasn’t been qualified as an expert.” … These facts clearly constitute additional independent factors which this Court requires before defendant’s knowledge and control may be inferred from the fact that four plastic bags of marihuana were found in a hunting vest

State v. McCray

15 Okla. Crim. 374 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1919

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 W. … In our opinion, said section does not attempt to define any of the'material ingredients of the crime of . the larceny of a written instrument, but merely establishes a rule of evidence whereby the value of the instrument

High v. State

401 P.2d 189 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 3, 1965

The only testimony other than defendant’s is that of the doctor who admits he is not qualified to testify on mental disease — as an expert or non-expert. … Furthermore, the affidavit does not clearly 'state to whom the statement was given, or if it was given — it states, “To the best of my recollection — ” This Court held in the case of Whisenhunt v.

French v. State

416 P.2d 171 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 8, 1966

Since the undisputed evidence establishes that James D. … This Court held this to be clearly violative of ■ the defendant’s constitutional right not to give incriminating, evidence against himself.

Habeas Corpus of Anderson v. State

386 P.2d 320 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 16, 1963

Were you the duly elected, qualified and acting Sheriff of Mc-Curtain County on or about December 31, 1958? “A. Yes sir. “Q. Do you know the petitioner in this case, John Richard Anderson? “A. Yes sir. “Q. … in this state and is clearly approved in the following- cases: Ex parte Middaugh, 40 Okl.Cr. 280 , 268 P. 321 ; Adams v.

Gibson v. State

501 P.2d 891 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 27, 1972

Earlier, on the day he testified, the court granted him immunity against prosecution for anything he might testify to concerning any part he played in this “drama.” … The rule was established by this Court in the early case of Beshirs v.

Pate v. State

361 P.2d 1086 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 19, 1961

This chain of circumstances clearly indicates that the defendant’s confession was voluntarily made. … In regard to the latter, his testimony was clearly corroborative of the pictures positively establishing the burial of Mary Jane.

Young v. State

357 P.2d 562 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 25, 1960

State, 54 Okl.Cr. 329 , 20 P.2d 194 , that the manner of qualifying jurors cannot be prescribed by any definite, unyielding rule. In Murphy v. … This rule is particularly applicable where accused’s guilt is clearly established by the evidence.”

Laub v. State

49 Okla. Crim. 171 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 2, 1930

The delay of a day would often be fatal to effectiveness and afford immunity, smacking somewhat of the antiquated right of sanctuary, for the criminal.” … Measures taken to prevent the unlawful traffic in intoxicating liquors are clearly measures taken to preserve the peace of the community; they prevent lawlessness and intoxication, and tend to the establishment of law and

Schrack v. State

84 Okla. Crim. 260 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 28, 1947

And we believe the law to be clearly settled there that if they refuse to testify, or testify falsely, they are to be tried themselves, and may be convicted on their own confession which was made after they were permitted … Having willfully refused to tes *274 tify against his accomplice, has he not forfeited the immunity which the state offered him upon that sole condition?

Murphy v. State

124 P.3d 1198 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2005

This statute provided that highways or roads may be established along all section lines located within the Creek or Muscogee Nation.... … Section 1151 clearly makes a distinction between the two. 19 .

Gray v. State

4 Okla. Crim. 292 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 23, 1910

King, the regularly elected, qualified and acting judge for said district, then and there presiding and acting, wherein the case of the State of Oklahoma v. … Laws provides that the indictment is sufficient if “the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a

Rogers v. State

8 Okla. Crim. 226 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 26, 1912

Cr. 704 , 103 Pac. 535 , this court said: “When a defendant has been properly charged with an offense and fairly tried, and the evidence clearly establishes his guilt, this court will not reverse the conviction upon any technicality … Therefore this is clearly not a case of harmless error.

Wishard v. State

5 Okla. Crim. 610 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 2, 1911

The principle that an instruction, which is general in its character, may be limited or qualified by other instructions given, does not contravene the rule that “material error in one instruction calculated to mislead is … Without going further into the testimony, we are clearly of the opinion that the verdict of the jury is abundantly sustained by the evidence.

Glenn v. State

72 Okla. Crim. 165 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1941

who is the nearest qualified justice of the peace. … The state had already established a prima facie case of embezzlement against the defendant before the introduction of the testimony of the witness, Strother.

Pickens v. State

126 P.3d 612 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2005

That is, the Court will use de novo review in appeals from jury decisions on mental retardation rather than the objective rule of appellate review established in Myers, for no other conclusion can be reached upon reviewing … Here it clearly is.

Alexander v. State

534 P.2d 1313 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 23, 1975

He stated that because the natural father of Judithan Brig-nance was on active military duty she was qualified for medical treatment by a military physician. … O., testified that he was a qualified Medical Examiner. He stated that he began treating the defendant in March of 1973, and confirmed that the defendant suffered from epilepsy.