Case law

Miller v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 255 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 26, 1913

Temple was then placed upon the stand by the state and qualified as an expert. He testified .that he too was called to examine the body of the deceased. … It clearly appears from the testimony of all of the witnesses that they were only expressing their opinions as experts'as to the cause of the death *263 of the deceased.

THOMAS v. STATE

550 P.3d 960 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 30, 2024

State , 1996 OK CR 56, ¶ 40 , 929 P.2d 988, 998 , which is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is contrary to the logic and effect of the facts presented. Neloms v. … See also 22 O.S.Supp.2021, §§ 982a, 812.1, 953, 1054, 1087, 1089(D)(1) and 1089.2. ¶5 Attorneys and pro se litigants are responsible for understanding the rules of this Court, especially those which establish time limits,

Brockman v. State

60 Okla. Crim. 75 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 28, 1936

Several character witnesses qualified as knowing the general reputation of the defendant in the community in Avhich he lives for being a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, and each testified that his reputation was good. … In our opinion, for the reasons stated, the testimony given by these two witnesses was clearly incompetent, inadmissible, and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

Eslinger v. State

734 P.2d 830 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 1987

In his second assignment of error appellant contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish that he knowingly concealed stolen property. … The trial judge’s complete statement clearly shows that he did not deny appellant’s right to a presumption of innocence.

Wilkins v. State

985 P.2d 184 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1999

Constitution establishes the federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it shall be the supreme law of the land. … Even though he was a custodial parent, Appellant’s act of taking the children from their home in the middle of the night without the knowledge or consent of the other custodial parent, also in the home, qualifies as malicious

Huff v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 675 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1913

On this question that court said: “The reservation of the authority of Congress to legislate in the future respecting the Indians residing within the new state is clearly supportable under the federal Constitution, art. 1 … “It is not our purpose to qualify the doctrine- established by repeated decisions of this court that the admission of a new state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states imports an equality of power over

Bryant v. State

302 P.2d 787 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1956

After qualifying questions, witness gave it as his opinion from hís observation o.f the defendant that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. … Insofar as it established an evidentiary fact, such chart was clearly hearsay.

Brinlee v. State

543 P.2d 744 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1975

We have on numerous occasions held that an information charging one with escape which follows substantially the language of the statute and states the offense clearly and distinctly in ordinary and concise language without … The record before this Court clearly reflects that defendant was arraigned before the District Court of Pittsburg County on November 6, 1973, and entered a plea of not guilty with his court appointed counsel, Mr. J. A.

Lockett v. State

73 O.B.A.J. 2327 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 14, 2002

Id. 120 It is well established that "photographs of murder victims can be probative in many respects.... … It is clear that most of the evidence relied upon by the State's forensic psychiatrist came from sources other than Appellant to which the State was clearly entitled.

Tate v. State

313 P.3d 274 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 28, 2013

An abuse of discretion has been defined as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Marshall v. … The Defendant's sentence for Count II in CF-10-211 exceeds the statutory maximum punishment established by the legislature. b.

STATE v. BRADLEY STATE v. BRODIE

2018 OK CR 34 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 15, 2018

The magistrate must consider the proof established by the State in light of the statutory elements of the given offense. … If the elements of the crime are not proven, then the fact of the commission of a crime cannot be said to have been established.

Herndon v. State

16 Okla. Crim. 586 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 15, 1919

The defendant was the duly elected, qualified, and acting county treasurer of Seminole county. … Its general object is to embody as clearly as practicable all the laws of a state from whatever source derived.

Porter v. State

76 Okla. Crim. 16 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 27, 1943

The motion alleges that Pittsburg county has now and has had for a long number of years a large negro population, among whom are about 2,000 negroes who are competent and qualified to serve on petit juries, but that no negroes … It is sufficient to state that the evidence establishes one of the most cold-blooded and bestial homicides shown by the records of this court.

Jordan v. Phillips

344 P.2d 600 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 23, 1959

There are well-established 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.

Cleek v. State

748 P.2d 39 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1987

The McCraw Court merely said that “it is not necessary that one be destitute or on public relief to qualify for appointment of counsel.” Id. … Holloway and cases cited therein are controlling only insofar as they establish a minimum level below which the states cannot fall.

Titsworth v. State

2 Okla. Crim. 268 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 17, 1909

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor … It is absolutely uniform in its operations throughout the state, and is clearly within the police power of the state.

Walker v. State

723 P.2d 273 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 22, 1986

Section 561 clearly states that the affiants must be residents of the county in which trial is pending. However, the State’s assertion about three of the other affidavits is incorrect. … The Court noted that this is correct, even assuming, arguendo, that “death-qualified” juries are somewhat more conviction prone than “non-death-qualified” juries. See also Foster v. State, 714 P.2d 1031 (Okl.Cr.1986).

Moore v. State

58 Okla. Crim. 122 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 25, 1935

I have received no promise of immunity or assistance of any kind from the banking department in consideration of my testifying in this case, although I was charged with a like offense in the district court of Oklahoma county … It is clearly shown by the record that the testimony of Earl Buttrill is fully corroborated as to facts sufficient to connect the defendant with the crime.

Arie v. State

1 Okla. Crim. 666 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 20, 1909

same shall provide by ordinance for submitting said Constitution to the people of said proposed state for its ratification or rejection at an election to be held at a time fixed in said ordinance, at which election, the qualified … The weight of authority is overwhelming that no immunity, by virtue of any constitutional provision, either federal or state, exists so as to prevent the state Legislature from regulating, and even prohibiting the traffic

BRAMLETT v. STATE

422 P.3d 788 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 2018

In reviewing a trial court's decision, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Gomez , 2007 OK CR 33 , ¶ 5, 168 P.3d at 1141 -42 . … "An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action made without proper consideration of the relevant facts and law, also described as a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, clearly against the logic and