Case law

Layman v. Webb

350 P.2d 323 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 24, 1960

This Court may not read into an Act provisions which are not clearly intended. That is to say, statutes cannot be enlarged by implication or extended by inference. Davison v. State, Okl.Cr., 281 P.2d 196 . … For a note involving immunity from prosecution granted by statutory provisions by reason of answering incriminatory questions, see note in 38 A.L.R.2d at page 257 , § 12. 8 .

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 .

Lowrey v. State

87 Okla. Crim. 313 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 15, 1948

This he did not do; some matters he admitted, others he sought to explain and qualify, others he denied entirely. … That fact is not clearly established in our minds. The bailiff directed the sheriff, W. T. Thorne, to remove certain exhibits.

Dodd v. State

71 O.B.A.J. 156 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 6, 2000

Here we very clearly have two letters that may or may not be true but should have been in evidence. … In making that determination,you should consider: (1) whether the witness has received anything (including pay, immunity from prosecution, leniency in prosecution, personal advantage, or vindication) in exchange for testimony

Farnsworth v. State

343 P.2d 744 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 10, 1959

"This conclusion is further confirmed by another well established principle of law, to wit, that, where a court has jurisdiction of the person and the offense, a defendant cannot take advantage of an error in his favor. … United States, 3 Cir., 60 F.2d 266 , a case clearly in point. We believe the jury intended the minimum sentence but overlooked, as did the trial court, the imposition of the fine.

Davis v. State

75 O.B.A.J. 3234 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 14, 2004

and the admission of evidence lie in the sound discretion of the trial court, whose rulings will not be disturbed unless that discretion is clearly abused, resulting in manifest prejudice to the accused. … Busby testified that he was qualified to conduct crime scene reconstruction and blood stain interpretation.

Hung Thanh Le v. State

68 O.B.A.J. 3218 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 2, 1997

Le noted Secondi had not yet been asked all the death-qualifying questions but did not want other jurors to hear Secondi’s philosophy (whatever it was). … This case is clearly distinguishable, since Le told Bemo and Cook he understood his Miranda rights and the search waivers were clearly explained (see Proposition II). . 22 O.S. 1991 , § 1175.4(A). . 730 P.2d 7, 8-9 (Okl.Cr

Hawkins v. State

73 O.B.A.J. 918 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 12, 2002

, qualified as the initiation of further communication. … However, even using the more- *144 stringent definition set forth in the dissent, hypothetically, Appellant's questions regarding who had been arrested and whether or not he had been blamed would clearly be about the subject

Ochoa v. State

69 O.B.A.J. 2672 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1998

. ¶ 17 At issue here is the provision in 38 O.S.1991, § 28, which states that “[sjher-iffs or deputy sheriffs” are not qualified to *593 serve on a jury. … Ochoa further maintains that the court erred in denying a motion that it ask certain death-qualifying questions and a motion challenging the death-qualifying nature of voir dire.

Grant v. State

205 P.3d 1 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 23, 2009

Grundy were never authenticated. 30 For that reason, we need not decide whether they qualified as “business records.” ¶ 45 Dr. … This statement clearly indicates that Appellant did not wish to represent himself at that time.

Buntin v. State

403 P.2d 237 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 11, 1965

Hughes, instructor at the Oklahoma State University, after having been qualified as an expert was that on a moonlight night under ideal conditions, the lumen of light per square foot was .004 to .005, or approximately 1,000 … We are in accord with the Oxendine case and the Archina case but are of the opinion that the facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from them.

Whitten v. State

94 Okla. Crim. 393 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 17, 1951

No attempt was made to qualify the witness as a medical expert or as a physician, and the exclusion of such testimony was not error. … from him by the deceased, and suggesting the caution that “The evidence admitted was not for the purpose of proving or disproving this charge except insofar as it might affect the credibility of the witness” was not as clearly

Wisdom v. State

67 O.B.A.J. 1846 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 22, 1996

It is clear that these statements were not admissible nor were they sought to be admitted under any of the firmly established exceptions to the hearsay rule found in 12 O.S.1991, § 2803. … Because there was no surprise, as the record clearly reflects, this error requires no relief.

Bemis v. State

12 Okla. Crim. 114 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 9, 1915

The information upon which the prosecution and conviction is based, is as follows: “In the name and by the authority of the state of Oklahoma, comes now Sam Hooker, the duly qualified and acting county attorney, in and for … If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense.

Paxton v. State

65 O.B.A.J. 120 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 30, 1993

To establish a Brady violation a defendant must establish that the prosecution suppressed evidence that was favorable to him or exculpatory and that the evidence was material. United States v. … to the current facts I believe that the child's exposure to outside influences between the death of her mother and the making of the statement deprive the statement of the degree of trust-worthiness necessary for it to qualify

Garcia v. State

43 O.B.A.J. 3017 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 26, 1972

State, Okl.Cr., 361 P.2d 1086 , we stated in the fourth syllabus: “The ease with which a jury was obtained and qualified on their voir dire to try the cause before the application for a change of venue is denied is of some … It was established on voir dire examination that the prospective juror Bogle had on occasion, for a period of two months, purchased gas approximately once a week at the service station and knew, the victim, Jimmy Bingham,

Mitchell v. State

235 P.3d 640 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 2010

In rejecting this argument, the Eleventh Cireuit Court of Appeals stated: Our conclusion that youthful offender convictions can qualify as predicate offenses for sentence enhancement purposes remains valid because Roper does … This evidence clearly shows the decedent's conscious physical suffering as a result of Appellant's repeated physical assaults to her body.

Gilbert v. State

648 P.2d 1226 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 1, 1982

The record establishes that Mr. Gilbert did not attempt to explain the motion. In State ex rel. Young v. … Moreover, we do not say that the more vicious the attack on the judge the less qualified he is to act. A judge cannot be driven out of a case.

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 .

Mayes v. State

65 O.B.A.J. 2808 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 4, 1994

However, the record clearly shows Appellant was apprised of the prosecution’s intention long before that. … While we recognize the general necessity of establishing a chain of custody on evidence, we fail to see how establishing a more thorough chain here would have helped or hindered Appellant.