Case law

Maddox v. State

12 Okla. Crim. 462 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 18, 1916

“The presumption of law is that a defendant can get a fair and impartial trial in the county in which the offense was committed, and, if this is not true, the burden is upon the defendant who seeks a change of venue to establish … Judge Collier, having duly qualified as Special Judge, the case was submitted upon oral argument and briefs by both parties;

McElmurry v. State

73 O.B.A.J. 21 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 2, 2002

Distefano, was not qualified to give an opinion on pain. The basis for his claim that the doctor was not qualified to give an opinion on pain is not apparent. … These events can be established by both expert and lay witnesses.

Rogers v. State

890 P.2d 959 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 1995

Mansfield is clearly distinguishable, as there was only one transaction in that case. … Sufficient independent evidence corroborated Rogers’ confession to establish its trustworthiness.

Ex Parte Lewis

85 Okla. Crim. 322 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 17, 1947

Such a holding would be clearly unwarranted in our opinion. … First, either the accused may be found guilty by reason of the fact of the crime and the establishment of his identity as the person who committed the same; and, the establishment of his mental capacity to know the wrongfulness

DAVISON v. STATE

478 P.3d 462 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 19, 2020

The Court has not clearly defined when a trial juror will be judged "unacceptable" in this sense. … The probative value of these three photographs, establishing K.B.'

McGregor v. State

885 P.2d 1366 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 6, 1994

Lanier, was not from Eastern State Hospital, had no actual knowledge of the records, and does not appear to have been qualified to introduce them. Admission of this testimony may have been error. … Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant’s right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession. .

Clayton v. State

63 O.B.A.J. 2803 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 1992

Regarding issue properly preserved, the decision whether a witness qualifies as an expert is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Kennedy v. State, 640 P.2d 971, 977 (Okl.Cr.1982). … The jury instructions given in the second *31 stage of appellant’s trial clearly set forth this standard.

Toles v. State

68 O.B.A.J. 2779 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 22, 1997

This pattern establishes the probability Toles would commit acts of violence in the future which would constitute a continuing threat to society. … Each of these challenges has been clearly resolved against Mm in an unbroken line of case law.

Underwood v. State

252 P.3d 221 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 25, 2011

Yet, as mentioned, Appellant concedes that the evidence establishes conscious physical suffering before death. … Arizona, which clearly contemplate that a suspect in custody, having invoked his right to silence, may thereafter change his mind. .

Fowler v. State

512 P.2d 238 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 1973

The record clearly reflects that defendant was properly advised of his Miranda rights and that he understood them. … The Whiteley case is clearly distinguishable.

Kennamer v. State

59 Okla. Crim. 146 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 14, 1936

-Menninger qualified as an expert in the field of psychiatry. … It is not every species of improper argument that justifies this court in reversing a judgment of conviction. * * * “We hold, therefore, that where the guilt of the appellant is clearly established, and there is no good reason

KNAPPER v. STATE

473 P.3d 1053 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 20, 2020

Cross , 565 U.S. 65, 69-70 (2011) (per curiam) (citing Roberts and Page as the clearly established federal law in an AEDPA case about an unavailable witness). … But Judge LaFortune's finding and conclusion that defense counsel avoided "a clear concession of guilt, or even an implied one" is clearly erroneous, and involves an unreasonable application of clearly established Sixth Amendment

PARKER v. STATE

495 P.3d 653 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 15, 2021

self-defense claim fails but the evidence establishes conditions satisfying the elements of manslaughter. … Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 , (2008) (holding "[o]n appeal, a trial court's ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.").

Stiles v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2899 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1995

As the district court’s Order denying post-conviction relief noted, this mitigation expert would not have been qualified to testify at Stiles’ 1986 trial, and nothing in the record before us suggests any similar expert would … This Court has clearly-stated that Mitchell is not retroactive and will not be applied to cases which were final prior to its decision. 20 Stiles is not entitled to relief under Mitchell, and this claim is denied.

Breshers v. State

572 P.2d 561 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 2, 1977

The defendant further asserts that the witness was not qualified to testify about the weapon. Citing Harvell v. … Clearly this falls within the purview of 21 O.S. 1971 , § 711: "Homicide is manslaughter in the first degree in the following cases: "1.

Shields v. State

32 Okla. Crim. 344 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 14, 1925

Considering the first assignment; i. e., insufficiency of the evidence, the larceny of the car is established beyond question and its possession traced to the defendant a few days after it was stolen. … There was no effort to show that any immunity was promised Owen and the presumption Is that he testified voluntarily. Dumas v. State, 19 Okla. Cr. 413 , 201 P. 820 .

Salter v. State

2 Okla. Crim. 464 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 26, 1909

Mathers, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Carter county, state of Oklahoma, and on his official oath gives the county court in and for said Carter county and state of Oklahoma to know and be informed … S., supra, and under the foregoing clause of said Schedule we believe said provision to be clearly repugnant *480 to the Constitution.

DeRosa v. State

75 O.B.A.J. 1267 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 22, 2004

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 … The victim impact statements in this case raise very serious questions, particularly Tol-bert’s sentencing recommendation, which violates our clearly established caselaw regarding the authorized "concise” and "unamplified

In Re the Habeas Corpus of Langley

325 P.2d 1094 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 21, 1958

in this state and is clearly approved in the following cases: Ex parte Middaugh, 40 Okl.Cr. 280 , 268 P. 321 ; Adams v. … receiving a requisition and papers in proper form from the executive of the demanding state; and, while the obvious purpose of such provision is to prevent an offender against the justice of one state from gaining an asylum and immunity

Powell v. State

21 Okla. Crim. 332 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 19, 1922

On the trial the codefendants Hart and Cline voluntarily testified against this defendant, waiving all privileges and immunities. … The state only demands the punishment of its citizens when their guilt has been clearly established according to the forms of law and by the rules of evidence prescribed for ascertaining their guilt.