Case law

Wiley v. State

17 Okla. Crim. 643 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 11, 1920

on the part of the prosecution or a hope of immunity on the part of the witness. … As heretofore stated, the state’s evidence tended clearly to connect the defendant with sales of whisky made in his drug store between July 1, 1917, and October 22, 1917, by his clerk, Paul Atkins; and, while the defendant

Ex Parte Houston

93 Okla. Crim. 26 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1950

Clearly the Airport Limousine Service is incidentally favored, but legally so by reason of what we have said heretofore. … Judge POWELL clearly demonstrates in his opinion that the mere fact of definition does not make them such.

Treadway v. State

338 P.2d 360 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 8, 1959

The officer said he could almost read the labels on the bottles and could clearly identify Jack Treadway, who looked about as far away as the back of the courtroom. … The competent evidence and its reasonable inferences tends to support the trial court’s finding, since the rule is definitely established that: “The constitutional provisions guaranteeing one immunity from unlawful search

Duncan v. State

89 Okla. Crim. 325 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1949

Snell, Delbert Smith, Buck White and Coy Dennis, and other evidence clearly establishing the guilt of the defendants herein, this contention relative to Sam Agrista is without merit, particularly when viewed in light of the … Maxine Preston clearly establishes the voluntary nature of the confession of Perry Pugh as well as the confession of Sam Agrista.

ASHTON v. STATE

2017 OK CR 15 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 1, 2017

This Court's interpretation of this provision is well established. … . ¶24 In the present case, neither of the two avenues for securing immunity under Section 27 occurred. The prosecution did not enter into an immunity agreement with Goff.

Ex Parte Strauch

80 Okla. Crim. 89 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1945

establishments and hotels. … Ed. 599 : “The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the national government, and granted or secured by the Constitution

Graham v. State

26 Okla. Crim. 95 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 28, 1924

One of the established modes of impeaching a witness is by proving that he has made statements out of court, contrary to his testimony. ' In this ease that was done by the only other witness for the state; also by the testimony … In our' opinion the evidence in this case is clearly insufficient to sustain the conviction. • Accordingly the judgment is reversed. MATSON, P. J., and BESSEY, J., concur.

Ex Parte Ferguson

62 Okla. Crim. 145 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 16, 1937

We fully concur in the views expressed in the quotations from the opinions in the foregoing cases and the principles established by them. … The laws of the state operate within the limits of municipalities the same as elsewhere unless otherwise clearly provided by the statutes.

Collins v. State

15 Okla. Crim. 96 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1918

Another objection that is clearly without merit relates to a certain conversation that the deputy sheriff, Larrison, had with Mrs. … The bullets themselves were permitted to be introduced in evidence, and this character of demonstrative evidence is always permissible where material to the issues, and in this case we think it clearly established that the

Nichols v. State

10 Okla. Crim. 12 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 8, 1913

it was a miscarriage of justice to grant immunity to Roscoe Barney, when the evidence of his guilt was undisputed. … The state only demands the punishment of a citizen when his guilt has been clearly established according to the forms and rules of law prescribed for ascertaining his guilt. • It is not to shield the guilty, but to protect

Tucker v. State

499 P.2d 458 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1972

Defendant argues that Maynard, who was granted immunity from prosecution and testified as a state’s witness in chief, when called as a rebuttal witness was merely repetitious of the earlier testimony. … Clearly, if the trial court may not so instruct the jury, it is improper for the prosecuting attorney to so instruct the jury.

Fields v. State

511 P.2d 1116 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1973

Consequently, defense counsel’s position on the search and seizure is clearly manifested as he contends the failure to prosecute the defendant for the offense of public intoxication clearly gives rise to a subterfuge. … I don’t think I would be qualified to make any physiological finding. “O. But, they do cause a physiological change in a person’s behavior ? “A. They are qualified as a central nervous system stimulant.”

Reed v. State

657 P.2d 662 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 25, 1983

The cases cited requiring the establishment of standards for punishment are capital cases, in which the jury was required to choose between a sentence of death and life imprisonment. See Furman v. … Furthermore, it is clearly not within the power of this Court to create a new system. That must be done by the legislature. In accordance with this opinion, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.

Luton v. State

47 Okla. Crim. 82 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 18, 1930

It is clearly shown that no legal ground is set out in the motion for continuance. No diligence on the part of the defendant is shown. The motion for continuance was properly overruled. … All of the courts hold that the corpus delicti cannot be established upon the uncorroborated confession of the defendant.

Ex Parte Owen

10 Okla. Crim. 284 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 15, 1913

Ed. 717 , said: “The Constitution having established the right on one part and the obligation on the other, it became necessary to provide by law the mode of carrying it into execution. … The Supreme Court of Florida, in Ex parte Powell, 20 Fla. 807 , at page 810, in the body of the opinion, after quoting from the Dennison case, supra, said: “It is very clearly stated by Chief Justice Taney, in the opinion

Burks v. State

568 P.2d 1311 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 7, 1977

That is, tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) the absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish … We think the evidence in the instant case clearly falls within at least three, if not four of the above exceptions.

Marr v. State

741 P.2d 884 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 12, 1987

In demonstrating the possession of specialized knowledge by the witness, it is necessary to qualify him as an expert in the field for which his opinion testimony is sought. In Croy v. … The State also established the bases for the trooper’s opinions.

Powell v. State

60 Okla. Crim. 267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 10, 1936

The instructions of the court are not complained of, except the defendant offered some special instructions that were refused by the court, but an examination of the record clearly shows that the court covered all of the … in evidence were sufficient to sustain the motion to quash the panel of jurors, in that it appeared the jury commissioners had purposely excluded from the jury list, because of their color, citizens of the African race, qualified

Toms v. State

95 Okla. Crim. 60 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 2, 1952

Beddo were qualified as experts. The record does not disclose any attack upon their qualifications as experts. … In such cases not only the facts but the conclusions to which they lead, may be testified to by qualified experts.

Simmons v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 18 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 21, 1951

Simmons, could not waive her husband’s right of immunity from an unlawful search and seizure of her husband’s home. On this premise he was eminently correct. See Carignano v. State, 31 Okla. … He testified clearly and convincingly that the crime of burglary had been committed by some one by unlawfully breaking and entering, and stealing and carrying away merchandise of C. R. Anthony & Company.