Case law

Hale v. State

750 P.2d 130 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1988

In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … He contends that the chart established his connection with the kidnapping because it contained notations showing, “Hale admits call.”

OLIVER v. STATE

516 P.3d 699 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 11, 2022

. ¶13 A witness may be "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education[.]" 12 O.S.Supp.2013, § 2702 Harris v. State , 2004 OK CR 1 84 P.3d 731 See also Salazar v. … Is this a clearly erroneous application of the statute? I still think not. ¶4 The complainant was forcibly strangled with a ligature.

Ex Parte Owens

37 Okla. Crim. 118 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 5, 1927

and boundaries as clearly and well defined as the nature of the case will admit. … “This statute describes clearly the offense, and affixes for it a limited, terminable and definite punishment.

McCarty v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2791 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1995

Appellant next contends that all three statements were given involuntarily because they were obtained by threats and conditioned upon promises of immunity, fair deals and leniency. … Other statements made by Gilchrist in response to questions posed by defense counsel and the prosecutor clearly demonstrated the limited value of hair comparison evidence.

Quillen v. State

163 P.3d 587 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 2007

However, language contained in Jewell , and relied upon by this Court to establish the "merger doctrine", was not contained in the statute. … So, this decision does not even comply with the rule ultimately established under the English Common Law.

Myers v. State

133 P.3d 312 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 4, 2006

Distefano opined that Williams was raped, the jury clearly could reach its own conclusion on this issue. … There, we determined the promise of immunity was clearly used to obtain the confession.

Cavett v. Territory

1 Okla. Crim. 493 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 23, 1908

No such claim is made, and the record shows that all the jurors were men well qualified to act as grand jurors. The accused was in no manner injured in his substantial rights. … accused is shown by his testimony, „in which he says, in answer to questions, as shown on page 309 of the record: “How long was it after you 'had your trouble somewhere about four years ago until your friendly relations were established

Rhine v. State

336 P.2d 913 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 3, 1958

John’s Hospital in Tulsa, qualified as an outstanding authority in that field. … State, 20 Ariz. 176 , 178 P. 776 , and the state contends that the facts of this case bring it clearly within this exception.

CITY OF TULSA v. O'BRIEN

2024 OK CR 31 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 2024

Further, the analysis in the Tenth Circuit's opinion establishes that Tulsa's Curtis Act arguments are without merit. Proposition III is denied. … Supreme Court has continued to use Duro 's rationale even after the superseding legislation, clearly indicating Congress merely changed the outcome as it applied to tribal jurisdiction over non-member Indians.

Price v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 359 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 10, 1913

The charging part of the information in this case is as follows : “Comes now Robert Tarter, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Pittsburg county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the superior court of Pittsburg … Under these authorities and upon every principle of reason and justice, both as a matter of fact and of law, appellant is clearly guilty of receiving stolen goods.

Grist v. State

510 P.2d 964 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 21, 1973

State, Okl.Cr., 437 P.2d 461 , we stated: “The facts of our instant case clearly show that the police officers walked into the house which was the scene of the crime and made a general inquiry as to what had happened. … Defendant argues that the trial court should have sustained the motions in that she made proof by two qualified witnesses that she was legally insane at the *970 time of the commission of the offense and that the State thereafter

McCracken v. State

65 O.B.A.J. 3381 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 12, 1994

The extent of cross-examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will reverse only if that discretion is clearly abused, resulting in manifest prejudice to the accused. Hickerson v. … In this case, the jury was instructed that Appellant was presumed innocent unless his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Etter v. State

11 Okla. Crim. 208 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 5, 1914

It is. clearly apparent that these violators of the law knew that they were being stopped by the officers. Both were armed. … We must be able to say that the verdict' was clearly against the evidence. If not, it will be allowed to stand.

Hutchinson v. State

562 P.2d 867 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 29, 1977

After being qualified as an expert witness, Mr. Ballew testified that he had performed chemical analysis of the substances in the bags found under the front seat of the defendants’ car. … Additionally, it must be established that even with the exercise of due diligence the evidence could not have been produced at trial . . . (Emphasis added).

Rowbotham v. State

542 P.2d 610 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 18, 1975

In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be *616 expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors … The photographs clearly depict the various bruises upon the child’s body and their probative value is not outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the defendant.”

Caskey v. State

496 P.2d 408 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 1972

State, as cited by Judge Bussey, the rule is most clearly enunciated in Thacker v. State, Okl.Cr., 303 P.2d 448 (1956): "Counsel for the accused did not make timely objection to the introduction of the evidence. … However, aside from Stoltz's testimony, the evidence established defendant's presence in the vehicle with the stolen guns and that he had one of the guns on his person.

Blanchard Et Ux. v. State

21 Okla. Crim. 263 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 27, 1922

Such statute clearly authorizes the use of depositions of nonresident witnesses in behalf of the defendant in a .criminal ease. … ■said cause, if not expressly, clearly by implication, that such depositions should be read in evidence at tbe trial.

Wells v. Territory

1 Okla. Crim. 469 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1908

The burden is upon the territory in this case to establish by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendánt did sell or exchange to Katz Brothers, a firm composed of Jacob Katz and Isaac Katz, partners, doing … The forgoing authorities properly state the law as we'-find 'it: The instruction wás- clearly 'erroneous, and misleading to the *481 jury. The defendant’s objection to this instruction was well taken.

Allen v. State

67 O.B.A.J. 713 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 16, 1996

In fact, the trial court articulated quite clearly the rational basis for his sentencing decision. There is no error here. … A pattern of violent conduct toward family and strangers is established beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence properly admitted in this case.

Stouffer v. State

738 P.2d 1349 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 18, 1987

Clearly this anonymous message was a statement made out of court, but offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3). … We agree with the trial court that Velva Ivens’ knowledge was too distant to establish a then current pattern of Ivens’ conduct or to be relevant, or to qualify as impeachment evidence. 12 O.S.1981, § 2401, 2406, and 2608