Case law

Vavra v. State

509 P.2d 1379 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 2, 1973

The questioning established that he had never spoken to either of the Blackleys, that he did not know their names, and that he had not heard them discuss the case. … That case is clearly distinguishable on its face. There the State told the jury they were paying for the defendant’s lawyer fees. The court held these remarks improper.

Burke v. State

62 O.B.A.J. 3443 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 1, 1991

The statement is not made in response to questioning calculated to lead the child to make a particular statement or is clearly shown to be the child's statement and not made solely as a result of a leading or suggestive question … The type of statement sought to be taken, while it is hearsay, is not the type of hearsay which can qualify as an exception to the right of confrontation when analyzed in the light of the historical foundation established

Fitzgerald v. State

85 Okla. Crim. 376 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1947

Therefore any evidence which tends to establish a conspiracy should be submitted to the jury. … It was clearly established that appellant had asked for and received other bribes at times and from persons other than those charged in the indictment, under the same and like circumstances, and upon the same understanding

Vandiver v. State

97 Okla. Crim. 217 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 23, 1953

each of the verbs ‘confined’ and ‘imprisoned,’ clearly indicating a legislative purpose to denounce as a felony any surreptitious restraint of one person by another in such sort as to deprive the subject of the crime ‘of … This rule applies in all cases in which the minor offense is necessarily an elemental part of the greater when proof of the greater necessarily establishes the lesser, or, as is sometimes stated, where the offenses are of

Cargle v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 50 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 22, 1995

There is also the evidence of a third gun: photographs clearly show a loaded .22 pistol was in a box on the floor between the coffee table and the couch where Sharon was sitting. … Here, the agreement states Jackson understood his immunity was based on the claim he was not a principal in the murders.

Childress v. State

1 P.3d 1006 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 22, 2000

We hereby decline the State's request that we overrule our decision to apply Shrum to cases currently pending on appeal. 1 25 While the elements of second degree felony murder are clearly not contained within the elements … However, the affidavits do not establish by clear and convincing evidence that the minds of the inhabitants of the county were so prejudiced that a fair trial could not be had in Sequoyah County.

Turner v. State

4 Okla. Crim. 164 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 21, 1910

Blackburn were qualified jurors to sit in said cause.” The rulings of the trial court upon the qualifications of Mr. Blackburn present the strongest case in favor of defendant’s contention. … In other words, while the trial court must be clearly satisfied that a juror is fair and impartial before permitting him to sit in a criminal case, yet, upon appeal to this court, it must be clearly shown that the trial court

Shriver v. State

632 P.2d 420 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 20, 1980

As we view the testimony, the State was attempting to establish whether the defendant had any personal dealings with the witness subsequent to the meeting of February, 1977. … We find that the cases relied upon by the defendant are clearly distinguishable from the instant case and that the trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s application for a suspended

Diaz v. State

728 P.2d 503 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 6, 1986

Moreover, the record clearly indicates that the plea agreement was not consummated until the evening immediately prior to the day it was revealed to the jury. … Once the witness was qualified as an expert, the weight and credibility of his opinion became a question for the jury. See Kennedy v. State, 640 P.2d 971, 978 (Okl.Cr.1982).

State Ex Rel. Burford v. Sullivan

86 Okla. Crim. 364 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 5, 1948

“Á writ of error coram nobis cannot be invoked for thé purpose of revoking a judgment of conviction by showing that a certain juror, prior to having qualified as such, had formed or expressed an opinion unfavorable to the … It cannot be said the facts now sought to be established were unknown and with due diligence could not have been presented by the defendant or that the defendant was prevented from presenting the facts now relied upon by

Higgins v. Brown, Judge

1 Okla. Crim. 33 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 9, 1908

This-treaty is the law of the land, and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the enjoyments of the privileges, rights, and immunities of the citizens of the United States. … consent of the Senate, should appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid, and when a vacancy should occur in the Legislative Council by death or removal from office, the House of Representatives should nominate two persons qualified

Hooper v. State

68 O.B.A.J. 3623 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 21, 1997

The State’s expert was well qualified and had testified in numerous courts as a DNA expert. … The record does not clearly support Hooper’s assertion that counsel believed they could not afford to ask Dr. Murphy to examine Hooper.

State v. Coyle

7 Okla. Crim. 50 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 19, 1912

This decision, rendered 20 years ago, has never been squarely followed by the Supreme Court of the United States, but, by numerous decisions, the general doctrine declared has been limited and qualified. Mr. … In this we think the lower court is clearly in error.

BENCH v. STATE

431 P.3d 929 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 4, 2018

Our review for prosecutorial misconduct is well established. … The point here is not just that the attack was brutal and cruel; it clearly was.

Roubideaux v. State

707 P.2d 35 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 22, 1985

rule, but the correct test in allowing testimony of an expert witness is whether: Scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … Clearly et al., McCormick on Evidence, § 140, p. 560, n. 20 (1984). See also 2 A.L.R.4th 330 . Also, these cases are distinguishable on other facts.

Trice v. State

64 O.B.A.J. 1285 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 15, 1993

Appellant, relying on the 1980 census, claims approximately 6.9% of the total age-qualified population in Oklahoma County were seventy years of age or older. … State, 706 P.2d 541, 545 (Okl.Cr.1985), appellant has failed to establish he requested counsel.

Davis v. State

665 P.2d 1186 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 9, 1983

That instruction also qualifies the defense to the extent that, should the deceased flee and the defendant pursue him when he is no longer in danger, it is not a killing in self-defense. … evidence tending to establish recent fabrication.

Roberson v. State

91 Okla. Crim. 217 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 3, 1950

Such procedure was highly prejudicial under the long established principles of this state. … The reason for the rule under the constitutional provision clearly did not exist.

Romano v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 4015 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 19, 1995

However, the other evidence clearly supports the inference Appellant was present at and participated in stabbing decedent. Therefore, it cannot be said Bevel’s final answer determined the verdict. … However, Howe’s testimony both in camera and before the jury clearly shows Woodruff acted prior to any contact with Appellant and obviates a finding of continuing conspiracy.

Primeaux v. State

75 O.B.A.J. 1179 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 6, 2004

Clearly, the Information is sufficient to give the defendant notice. … While all real guns (and even some toys guns) probably qualify as "firearms" for the purpose of a "robbery with a dangerous weapon" offense, all knives do not necessarily qualify as "dangerous weapons" for the purpose of