Case law

REYNOLDS v. STATE

2022 OK CR 14 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 4, 2022

Here, the State has established with reasonable particularity that Reynolds's DVR system was password protected thereby establishing the existence of the password, and that Reynolds was the owner and sole operator of the … system thereby establishing his possession of the password and its authenticity.

McNEELY v. STATE

422 P.3d 1272 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 24, 2018

Petitioner may be able to establish a factual basis for a Stand Your Ground defense; but she cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief of Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. Id . … Yet, the immunity created in section 1289.25 is a conditional immunity meaning that it applies only if certain factual elements are established. See, e.g., People v.

REYNOLDS v. STATE

2022 OK CR 14 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Aug 4, 2022

Here, the State has established with reasonable particularity that Reynolds's DVR system was password protected thereby establishing the existence of the password, and that Reynolds was the owner and sole operator of the … system thereby establishing his possession of the password and its authenticity.

Guthery v. State

24 Okla. Crim. 183 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 28, 1923

by promises of immunity, and for such reasons was clearly inadmissible. … Under no circumstances, therefore, would he be entitled to immunity from prosecution under the provisions of section 27, art. 2, of the Constitution, and no plea of immunity was interposed in bar of the prosecution.

Shapard v. State

437 P.2d 565 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 20, 1967

Lackey, supra, clearly distinguishes it from the instant case: “1. … State, Okl.Cr., 429 P.2d 542 , we held that immunity could be granted only when a charge is pending against an accused and the witness to whom immunity is granted has evidence tending to establish the guilt of the accused

Dixon v. State

89 Okla. Crim. 205 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 4, 1949

The evidence herein is wholly insufficient to support such a contention, in fact, it clearly establishes due process of law, not a denial thereof. The situation confronting us is not such as was presented in Holland v. … It is harmless for the reason that the other evidence offered by the state clearly and sufficiently establishes the charge as laid against the defendant, without the aid of the confession.

Handley v. State

69 Okla. Crim. 321 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 23, 1940

In those cases the statute clearly pro *327 vides that the person charged cannot be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of one such witness. … He has committed no offense; therefore, has nothing to confess and has no desire for immunity. The above statute clearly has no application to the instant case.

Nuckols v. Van Wagner

511 P.2d 1110 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 13, 1973

immunity. … which the immunity is claimed.

Coleman v. State

70 Okla. Crim. 246 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jul 17, 1940

Ann., provides when immunity may be claimed in this state, and is as follows: “Any person having knowledge or possession of facts *251 that tend to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation charged with an offense … The facts in the instant case clearly show that no agreement was made with the county attorney, his assistants, or any other officer of Oklahoma county, as to his having immunity by reason of any statement which he might

Cowan v. State

38 Okla. Crim. 399 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jan 7, 1928

It is first argued that the information is insufficient; *402 that it fails to clearly disclose whether the prosecution is based on the general larceny statute, or on the special statute (section 2116, Comp. … The' reasonable inferences arising from the circumstances proyen conclusively establish the guilt of defendant. We see no reason to disturb the judgment. The case is affirmed. DOYLE, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.

Scribner v. State

9 Okla. Crim. 465 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 31, 1913

What was known as the Court of Star Chamber was established in 1487, which was the successor to and which followed the precedents established by the ecclesiastical courts. … But the doctrine established in Texas, and which we intend to see enforced in Oklahoma, is that if a witness willfully swears falsely, immunity shall not be extended to him.

McNEELY v. STATE

2018 OK CR 18 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 24, 2018

Petitioner may be able to establish a factual basis for a Stand Your Ground defense; but she cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief of Stand Your Ground immunity from prosecution. Id . … established law."

Perry v. State

84 Okla. Crim. 211 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 14, 1947

Clifford, immunity is granted under Artcile 2, Section 27, of the Oklahoma Constitution. … If there had been no right of silence, there would be no necessity for granting immunity.

Kearns v. State

14 Okla. Crim. 142 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 9, 1917

The proof clearly establishes the fact to our mind that the deceased was struck over the head with a slung-shot and rendered insensible, but not killed outright; that immediately thereafter he was struck upon the head with … The statement made to Ex-Governor Ferguson was not made, however, under *147 the promise of immunity, leniency, or any other inducement whatever.

Griffith v. State

734 P.2d 1301 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Mar 11, 1987

Therefore, the appellant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the affidavit was not supported with sufficient facts to establish probable cause. … In this procedure, the trial court has the authority to grant immunity on a question-by-question basis.

In Re Proc. of Multicounty Grand Jury

64 O.B.A.J. 517 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Feb 12, 1993

It has been clearly established that it is constitutionally permissible to close grand jury proceedings and there is no First Amendment right of access to grand jury proceedings when the public is also excluded. … Dye, 571 P.2d 1200 (Okla.1977), is cited by one of the parties to establish what is meant by “open court” in a grand jury context.

Bowes v. State

7 Okla. Crim. 316 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 9, 1912

Darnell, a notary public, he being then and there a duly appointed, qualified,- and acting deputy county attorney of Custer county, and being also the law partner of P. A. Snodgress, the county attorney. … AVe are clearly of the opinion that the testimony of this witness is insufficient to sustain a conviction. In the case of Shive v. State, infra, this witness testified to almost the same state of facts.

Myers v. State

71 O.B.A.J. 3246 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Dec 8, 2000

Obviously, this was the result, even though Sharp did not believe that Appellant committed the murder at the time of the promise of immunity. {57 Clearly, the confession would not have been admissible in a criminal trial … The evidence at trial clearly established that Byrd got out of the county jail after he agreed to testify, but only to be sent to California to face a probation violation allegation, which was why he was originally in jail

McCarty v. State

69 O.B.A.J. 3886 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Nov 6, 1998

This fact *1135 clearly distinguishes the holdings in Barnett and Hawkins. … In Scribner, 132 P. at 941 , we discussed the importance of truthfulness: "Now, if this Court establishes the doctrine that a witness cannot gain immunity unless he testifies to the truth, and nothing but the truth, and makes

Pate v. State

429 P.2d 542 · Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · Jun 14, 1967

This was clearly indicated by defense counsel, as is reflected by pg. 32 of the transcript where the jurisdiction was first questioned. … to a witness appearing before a grand jury; (b) authorize the granting of immunity to a witness appearing before a Legislative Committee acting within the scope of its constitutional authority; and, (c) granting immunity