Case law

Pennington v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 36 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 28, 1995

To suggest that any murder committed in a public place might qualify under this aggravator is far too broad an application. … Authentification may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. Id.

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.

Lewis v. State

970 P.2d 1158 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 3, 1999

The jury was instructed on how to assess information supporting expert testimony in Instruction 16A: You have heard witnesses qualified as experts testify as to their opinions. … That’s what they’re clearly talking about here. Malice aforethought as to Anita? Yes. Premeditation? No. Sanity? No.

Scott v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 613 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 14, 1995

This Court recently addressed the manner in which trial courts conduct death qualifying voir dire in Mayes v. State, 887 P.2d 1288 (Okl.Cr.1994). … Clearly, any bias or motivation to testify was relevant on these issues.

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.

SHEPARD v. STATE

2023 OK CR 15 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2023

Appellant argues although "a shooting clearly occurred, the evidence reflects randomness and an attempt to escape rather than malice aforethought[.]" … Appellant's allegation is based on nothing more than speculation and does not establish bias.

Ellis v. State

65 O.B.A.J. 475 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 26, 1994

“The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96 , 106 S.Ct. at 1722 . … The evidence clearly supports *1302 the jury’s finding that appellant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in all three cases.

SHEPARD v. STATE

2023 OK CR 15 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 21, 2023

Appellant argues although "a shooting clearly occurred, the evidence reflects randomness and an attempt to escape rather than malice aforethought[.]" … Appellant's allegation is based on nothing more than speculation and does not establish bias.

Coddington v. State

142 P.3d 437 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 16, 2006

The record does not establish that Juror Equigua was, in fact, a woman of a minority race. See f 1 supra. We find no plain error. … (citations omitted) Id. ¶ 48 The trial court clearly erred by limiting the testimony of Dr.

Jackson v. State

964 P.2d 875 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 30, 1998

Persons who are not qualified to serve as jurors are: Persons who have been convicted of any felony or who have served a term of imprisonment in any penitentiary, state or federal, for the commission of a felony; provided … We should establish the following procedure for applying the standard set out in Kinsey : 1.

Washington v. State

989 P.2d 960 · 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.

Hooks v. State

126 P.3d 636 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 7, 2005

His IQ tests certainly suggest he has borderline intelligence but do not clearly meet the Murphy definition for mental retardation. … To establish that the first signs of mental retardation appeared and were recognized before the defendant turned eighteen, lay opinion and poor school records may be considered.”

Roberts v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 408 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 26, 1996

To establish prejudice, Petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. … Counsel is not ineffective for waiving peremptory challenges, when a petitioner cannot show that the jury which was ultimately seated was composed of members who were not qualified to sit. See Ross v.

Smallwood v. State

66 O.B.A.J. 3304 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 13, 1995

State, 871 P.2d 35, 43 (Okl.Cr.1994), it is very difficult to establish a pattern based on the striking of one black juror. … Appellant’s request was properly denied by the trial court as such evidence is irrelevant, and does not qualify as mitigating evidence, having no bearing on Appellant’s character, prior record, circumstances of the offense

Malaske v. State

75 O.B.A.J. 1498 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 21, 2004

The previous version of the instruction was given, however, and this case is clearly distinguishable from Graham . … Interestingly, two of them hold that it is not illegal to sell alcohol to a minor when the minor is clearly acting as a messenger for an adult buyer. State v.

Grimes v. State

65 Okla. Crim. 99 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 7, 1938

In the above case, the question before the court was whether an individual other than the duly elected and qualified county attorney had the right, in this state, to prosecute a case where the information was not filed by … This principle is clearly illustrated by the facts and the opinion in the case of Hess v. State, supra. It is further provided by the statutes of this state, as follows: Section 2654, Okla. Stats. 1931, 37 Okla. St.

Powell v. State

995 P.2d 510 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 2, 2000

The testimony from A.L. established the conspiracy likely existed on the night before the shooting. … Moreover, even if these statement did not qualify as non-hearsay co-conspirator statements, they were admissible through other means.

Williams v. State

188 P.3d 208 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 25, 2008

State, 2006 OK CR 46 , 1 60, 147 P.3d 245, 2683 (holding that an abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, which is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented.) $28 Juror R.J. indicated … E. 180 In proposition seven, Williams claims that the trial court erred in *225 permitting a police officer to give expert testimony for which he was not qualified to give.

Williamson v. State

62 O.B.A.J. 1674 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 15, 1991

The record does not clearly state when Ms. Long received this evidence, but she did receive numerous other items of evidence from Agent Rogers on December 16, 1982. … Reading his testimony in its entirety, it clearly left the ultimate issues of fact with the jury.

Gregg v. State

63 O.B.A.J. 3673 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 4, 1992

We agree with the magistrate that in such a circumstance, the reliability of the informant was not established, and, therefore, probable cause did not exist to issue the warrants. Fletcher, 735 P.2d at 1194 . … Apparently, it is appellant’s contention that his decision to video tape acts of sexual conduct somehow immunizes him from prosecution for the sexual acts.