Case law

Tegeler v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 138 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 5, 1913

By abuse of discretion is meant a 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. … To hold that such a juror was qualified would be to suspend those provisions of the Constitution which guarantee to every man charged with crime an impartial trial and the administration of justice without prejudice.

Jones v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2246 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1995

As noted above the trial court conducted the death qualifying portion of the voir dire. … Instruction Nos. 26 and 28 clearly state that only Hammon was charged with possessing a loaded firearm after former conviction of a felony and felo-niously pointing a weapon.

Pruitt v. State

270 P.2d 351 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 28, 1954

Hasselman of the Osteopathic Hospital, duly licensed and qualified. He did not perform the autopsy but examined Mrs. … guilt, so the rule has been many times stated that where a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence and circumstances are proven from which the reasonable and logical inferences of guilt clearly arise, and which exclude

Mooney v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 2414 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 31, 1999

The facts proving each offense are clearly intertwined. … Juror Henry’s note clearly indicated that he believed the jury was hopelessly deadlocked.

Hammon v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2230 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1995

The trial court conducted the death qualifying portion of voir dire. 26 However, both prior to voir dire and after death qualifying the venire panel, Hammon’s and Jones’ lawyers 27 moved to question the jury about the other … The medical examiner established the death of Gene Slape.

Byers v. Territory

1 Okla. Crim. 677 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 15, 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

Cope v. State

23 Okla. Crim. 161 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 27, 1923

The subject of such terms cannot be so limited or qualified without destroying the meaning of the term itself. … A. 576, it was held that a trial judge should not arbitrarily limit the number of witnesses that might be called to establish a fact of controlling importance. In the case of Browder v. State, 30 Tex. App. 614, 18 S.

Yeager v. State

43 Okla. Crim. 318 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 22, 1929

While the evidence on the part of the state was wholly circumstantial, yet it was that kind of circumstantial evidence that established the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. … The record discloses that a foul crime was committed, and the evidence clearly shows that the defendant was guilty of this crime.

Stokes v. State

86 Okla. Crim. 21 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 14, 1948

When measured by both the information and the applicable statutes, instruction No. 6 was clearly erroneous. … W. 476, 477 , is a case in point, supporting this conclusion wherein tbe court said: “Appellant could not have been misled by tbe words 'warehouse and tobacco house,’ for the same were qualified by tbe further description

Hayes v. State

292 P.2d 442 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1956

The fact that defendant did have a work bench at the Williams 'Garage and that officer Lang did take a wrench from it, seems to have been clearly admitted. … And here was involved a charge of murder, where the jurors had been qualified for the assessment of the death penalty, and where the evidence outlined was wholly circumstantial.

Wixon v. State

527 P.2d 333 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1974

After being duly qualified as an expert, he testifed that the substance confiscated by Boston and Alcorn in their arrest of the defendant was marijuana. … The defendant’s next assignment of error alleges that the instructions given by the trial court were inadequate and erroneous in that they failed to clearly instruct the jury that the burden of proof rests upon the State

Gibbons v. Territory

5 Okla. Crim. 212 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1911

We think the cases quoted from and those cited clearly show that the indictment in this case should have been set aside. … instruction, the court obviously undertook to inform the jury under what state of facts they could find the defendant was lawfully at the premises and required that body to find that the three following propositions were established

Hogan v. State

139 P.3d 907 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 15, 2006

The legislature repealed the Code of Criminal Procedure's privilege of spousal immunity four years later. … The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Burrows v. State

640 P.2d 533 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 20, 1982

And, I cannot say from reading the instructions as a whole that the jury clearly understood the appellant was not required to prove he did not intend to kill his wife. … In such cases not only the facts but the conclusions to which they lead, may be testified to by qualified experts. (Emphasis added).

Middleton v. State

16 Okla. Crim. 320 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 30, 1919

The reason of the said statutory rule established by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, and by this court, is expressed in R. C. … But the holding of this and other courts is substantially uniform that where it is once clearly shown that there exists in the mind of the juror, at the time he is called to the jury box, a fixed and positive opinion as to

McCord v. State

2 Okla. Crim. 214 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 7, 1909

Article 14 of the Constitution of the United States declares that: “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 … The act does not in express terms forbid interstate shipments, and a reference to the *232 provisions of the act clearly shows that the right to receive interstate shipments is therein recognized.

Griswold v. State

23 Okla. Crim. 136 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1922

assent of the county of Logan, aforesaid, or of any of the persons, classes of persons, estates or corporations above mentioned, and failed, refused and neglected to turn over said sum of $2,010.91 to his duly elected, qualified … The reasons for the rule are clearly set forth by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Ker v. People, 110 Ill. 627, 647 , 51 Am. Rep. 706 , 4 Am., Crim.

Haines v. State

275 P.2d 347 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 23, 1954

It thus appears there was a sharp conflict in the version of the defense of the killing and that established by the state. … It clearly appears the record herein as hereinbefore indicated would have sustained a verdict of murder.

Dooley v. State

82 Okla. Crim. 243 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 24, 1946

Counsel for defendant did not properly qualify these witnesses and the attorney who is now prosecuting this appeal, and who did not appear at the trial, complains that if these witnesses had been properly qualified they would … “To reverse the judgment of conviction in this case on the facts which are either admitted or so clearly established as to be beyond controversy would be not only to delay justice, but to give no force to the statute which

Holt v. State

84 Okla. Crim. 283 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1947

Cross was clearly in rebuttal to tbe contentions of defendant that bis wife had become affiliated with J ebovah’s Witnesses after tbe deceased came to Ardmore, as she testified that her mother was forced to leave tbe defendant … After objections were made by the state that the witness was not shown to have been qualified to answer a hypothetical question concerning the defendant’s sanity, counsel for defendant should have qualified him further by