Case law

Riddle v. State

288 P.2d 761 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Oct 5, 1955

Hence, his qualifications were not properly established. … It appears herein, that Officer Haddock was not so qualified.

Bryan v. State

11 Okla. Crim. 180 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 28, 1914

McNabb, the duly qualified and acting county attorney in and for Sequoyah county, state of Oklahoma, and gives the district court of Sequoyah county, state of Oklahoma, to know and be informed that E. M. … The plaintiff in error may be guilty and may be a thief, but the state’s evidence fails wholly to establish guilt as required by law. This conviction is clearly contrary to the evidence.

Jones v. State

426 P.2d 377 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Apr 12, 1967

The first assignment of error is “That her trial was not presided over by any duly elected and qualified judge.” The trial judge, John A. Brett, was a Supernumerary Judge. … There is not a constitutional restriction on the Legislature forbidding or pre-empt-ing establishment of a method of selection of special judges; therefore, the legislative enactment challenged by Plaintiff in Error is clearly

Maytubby v. State

665 P.2d 849 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 24, 1983

Moreover, as the State established that Mr. Thompson, acting in his official capacity, could testify as to what the warrants meant and represented, we hold that he was a qualified witness within the statutes meaning. … The judgment and sentence form clearly sets the amount of restitution at $1,603.00, the amount alleged to be fraudulently obtained in the informa-tions.

Watson v. State

7 Okla. Crim. 508 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 15, 1912

The evidence in the record clearly establishes the guilt of defendant, and it is with great reluctance that this office feels constrained to enter a confession of error. … The evils arising from the invasion of a right extended to the accused by written and unwritten law would far outweigh any harm arising from temporary immunity given an undeserving person.

Arie v. State

1 Okla. Crim. 250 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 2, 1909

same shall provide by ordinance for submitting said Constitution to the people of said proposed state for its ratification or rejection at an election to be held at a time fixed in said ordinance, at which election, the qualified … The weight of authority is overwhelming that no immunity, by virtue of any constitutional provision, either federal or state, exists so as to prevent the state Legislatures from regulating, and even prohibiting thg traffic

State v. Anderson

70 O.B.A.J. 789 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 9, 1998

Perry, Associate District Judge, denied the motion to quash, ruling that Appellee, although only a visitor in the residence, qualified as an “occupant” under Section 1289.25. A jury trial was subsequently commenced. … The preamble seems to clearly set forth the intent of the law — “that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.”

Garrett v. State

74 Okla. Crim. 78 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 25, 1942

Raymond Farrias, called as a witness by the state, testified, without claiming immunity, that he and Waid-ner had stolen certain property and sold it to defendant. … We may remark here that the state only demands the punishment of a citizen when his guilt has *86 been clearly established according- to the forms and rules of law prescribed for ascertaining, his guilt.

Swanegan v. State

743 P.2d 131 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Sep 22, 1987

The trial judge must clearly explain to the defendant the inherent disadvantages in such a waiver, including a lack of knowledge and skill as to rules of evidence, procedure and criminal law. … The record must establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’ The defendant should be especially aware of the rules promulgated in Parker v.

Allen v. State

560 P.2d 1030 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 28, 1977

(4) Identity of the person charged with the commission of crime for which he is on trial, and (5) Common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish … This is clearly within one of the recognized exceptions of the general proscription and is competent evidence.

State v. Hall

185 P.3d 397 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 23, 2008

State, 1998 OK CR 33, ¶ 26 , 965 P.2d 955, 968 ("[i]t is well established that juries are presumed to follow their instructions", quoting Zafiro v. … Benson, 1983 OK CR 43 , 661 P.2d 908, 909 . [11] Harris, 841 P.2d at 600 (claim of immunity would complete defense to the criminal charge); Nicodemus v.

Coker v. State

26 Okla. Crim. 230 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 29, 1924

This rule will not apply to an instruction clearly or fundamentally wrong, but it should apply to all cases where the question is a fine distinction of syntax or of mere technical inaccuracies, defining burden of proof, reasonable … In the Rogers Case the trial court, touching upon the question of self-defense, used this qualifying clause: “Unless the facts constituting such reasonable cause have been established by the evidence in the case, you cannot

State Ex Rel. Young v. Warren

536 P.2d 965 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 7, 1975

It clearly appears from the record before the Court that on January 3, 1975, all of the attorneys of record for all four of the defendants and the Assistant District Attorney of Creek County appeared before Judge Haworth … Nothing in this opinion shall be construed as precluding the State from granting the defendants in any case, capital or otherwise, immunity from prosecution, so long as the immunity granted conforms to the Constitution and

Leppke v. State

559 P.2d 459 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 24, 1977

The court granted the witness immunity from prosecution after he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. … In Collier the accomplice was given immunity from prosecution to testify against the defendant.

Winfield v. State

44 Okla. Crim. 232 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 31, 1929

The defendant next contends that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence against the defendant, which was clearly prejudicial to his substantial rights. … This was a privilege accorded to Jones, not to the defendant, but by section 27 of article 2, supra, it is'specifically provided: “Any person having knowledge or possession of facts that tend to establish the guilt of any

Whitehorn v. State

561 P.2d 539 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 23, 1977

State, Okl.Cr., 511 P.2d 1133 (1973), wherein we held, in an analogous situation concerning a substance listed in 63 O.S.1972 Supp., § 2-206 D(l), as follows: “Clearly by the statutory language stating ‘which contains any … Woody, 61 Cal.2d 716 , 40 Cal.Rptr. 69 , 394 P.2d 813 (1964), held that the First Amendment, right of freedom of religion, clothes members of the Native American Church with immunity from prosecution.

Hain v. State

67 O.B.A.J. 1977 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 7, 1996

The prosecution established that Appellant initially told police he had nothing to do with the murders. … Appellant’s analysis is misplaced as this case is clearly distinguishable from the above cited cases.

Goodwin v. State

68 Okla. Crim. 381 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 1, 1940

I have been promised no immunity; I now have two burglary charges pending in this court against me, Leo> Davis is dead, he was killed while burglarizing a house.” *385 That be bad burglarized not over three bouses since tbe … A number of witnesses qualified as character witnesses, and each testified that defendant’s reputation in the community in which he lives for truth and veracity was good, and as to being a law-abiding citizen it was good.

Ellis v. State

795 P.2d 107 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 13, 1990

Fish was offered immunity. (P.H. 6-7). Based on this transaction, appellant contends Mr. Box incurred a conflict of interest. … We find that appellant has failed to establish that his defense counsel’s prior dealings with Mr. Fish adversely affected his defense. The record indicates that appellant’s defense counsel extensively cross examined Mr.

Ex Parte Neighbors

85 Okla. Crim. 183 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 19, 1947

But this doctrine is a qualified one, or rather the order of the judge is qualified by the law and such rules and regulations of the prisons as may have been lawfully adopted. … The statutes clearly classify him as a subject for confinement in the penitentiary.