Case law

Miller v. State

977 P.2d 1099 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 19, 1999

This is gratuitous violence sufficient to establish Miller subjected the victim to serious physical .abuse. … The evidence established that Miller took money from Kent Dodd, and that Kent Dodd knew and could identify Miller.

Tiger v. State

900 P.2d 406 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 15, 1995

Here the indictment was returned by the requisite number of duly qualified grand jurors, acting under order of the court continuing the grand jury in session. … Clearly, in these cases the court not only has jurisdiction to try and decide the question raised, but it is its imperative duty to do so.

Harris v. State

84 P.3d 731 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 5, 2004

. ¶ 37 We reject Appellant's claim that Stanaland was not qualified to testify on the subject of domestic violence. … The prosecutor clearly mentioned the issue of Appellant's "moral culpability," and the second-stage instructions referred to it as well.

Smith v. State

245 P.3d 1233 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 5, 2010

This claim does not qualify for relief under Strickland. B. … That the test clearly indicated that Michael has a substantial abuse problem.

Lambert v. State

888 P.2d 494 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 28, 1994

Merely establishing that some jurors had knowledge of the case is not enough to establish prejudice. Wooldridge v. State, 659 P.2d 943 (Okla.Cr. 1983). In Price v. … Munson clearly says that a defendant may be tried for felony murder if he is on notice of the underlying felony unless he shows that he was misled by the charging Information. [5] Lambert was clearly misled by the decision

WHITE v. STATE

437 P.3d 1061 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 2019

The State's evidence clearly established that the person who shot Brewer did so with the intention of killing him; Crowley testified that the assailant (whom he identified as Appellant) exclaimed, "No one told you that I … Initially, it is questionable whether this qualifies as other crimes evidence, or was merely a non-prejudicial suggestion of unspecified wrongdoing. See Bear v.

Perry v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 1350 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 7, 1995

Clearly, under these circumstances, Perry’s claim that *533 he was deprived his right to effective assistance of counsel lacks merit. … To establish “continuing threat” the State must show “a pattern of criminal conduct that will likely continue in the future.”

Gilbert v. State

68 O.B.A.J. 3891 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1997

Here, the record clearly supports the trial judge’s decision. … These two instructions clearly stated that in order for the defendant to be found guilty it must be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he personally intended to kill the victim.

Summers v. State

231 P.3d 125 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 2010

Put another way, the proponent must establish corroborating circumstances clearly indicating that the exculpatory "matter asserted" in the hearsay statement is trustworthy. … Nothing established Campbell's presence at the crime scene, or even in Tulsa, at the time of the murders; nothing established his opportunity to commit the crimes; nothing placed him in the company of the self-admitted participants

Malone v. State

168 P.3d 185 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 31, 2007

Defense counsel asked only a few questions, in an attempt to establish that since her husband's death, Mrs. … established by the evidence presented in the first stage of Malone's trial.

MARTINEZ v. STATE

371 P.3d 1100 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 8, 2016

It need not conclusively or directly establish guilt if, when taken with other evidence in the case, it tends- to establish a material fact in issue. Id. … 'An abuse of discrétion is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented, C.L.F. v.

Black v. State

72 O.B.A.J. 858 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 2001

Nowhere in the record did defense counsel request the trial court to life-qualify the jury. Nor was defense counsel prevented from life-qualifying the jury. … Because the trial court's ruling upholding the challenge is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, we find no Batson error. 10 FIRST STAGE ISSUES 133 In his first proposition of error, Appellant claims his murder

Trowbridge v. State

502 P.2d 495 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 11, 1972

After being qualified as an expert witness, he identified the package which he received from Officer Lewal-len of the Tulsa Police Department. … This rule clearly applies to a case where one party resorts to incompetent evidence without objections, and where the opposite party relies with evidence of the same character.

Goode v. State

236 P.3d 671 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 9, 2010

This fact was undisputed and was clearly established by other evidence in this case. While the time of death might have been an issue, this conversation did nothing to establish a time of death. … I would submit that a 911 tape that qualifies for admission pursuant to Davis v.

Hast v. Territory

5 Okla. Crim. 162 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 7, 1911

The state should be required to establish the required chaste and virtuous character. … Of course, no one should be convicted upon suspicion; but where a defendant has been found guilty of this infamous and detestable offense, after having had a fair' and impartial trial, and the evidence clearly shows his guilt

Washington v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 1578 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 7, 1999

The question of whether or not a lay witness is qualified to render an opinion is' a preliminary determination within the sound discretion of the trial court whose decision will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or … Such argument is clearly improper. Id. See also Brown v.

LaFevers v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 2160 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 21, 1995

LaFevers’ pretrial motion challenging “death qualifying” questions was overruled. … Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 393 , 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1790, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession). .

Hanson v. State

74 O.B.A.J. 1845 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 11, 2003

I cannot agree error exists in the failure to hold a Daubert/Kumho hearing, where Appellant failed to establish the relevancy of his proffered witness's testimony to the Court. ¶ 5 Additionally, I disagree with the Opinion's … State, 1995 OK CR 33 , 898 P.2d 1287, 1300 (reversal required where trial court failed to allow life-qualifying questions). See also Wackerly v.

Short v. State

70 O.B.A.J. 1223 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 14, 1999

The trial court’s decision on the issue of discriminatory intent will not be overturned unless we are convinced that the determination is clearly erroneous. … Bayless’s testimony does not qualify as surrebuttal evidence.

STEWART v. STATE

442 P.3d 158 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 16, 2019

"Many persons may not qualify as the kind of 'public civil officers' we have come to associate with the term 'magistrate.' … Unless a statute is clearly unconstitutional, an officer cannot be expected to question the judgment of the legislature that passed the law. Id., 480 U.S. at 349 -50 , 107 S.Ct. at 1167 .