constitutional guaranty immunity in Oklahoma

1973Nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense.” In the early case of Estep v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 103 , 143 P. 64 (1914), this Court held: “The term ‘same offense,’ as used in the constitutional provision, does not signify the same offense eo nomine, but the same criminal act, transaction, or omission.” Title 22, O.S.1971, § 14, provides: “No person can be subjected to a second prosecution for a public offense for which he has once been prosecuted and duly convicted or acquitted, except as herein provided for new trials.” In Estep v. State, supra, the foll

1973Nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense.” In the early case of Estep v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 103 , 143 P. 64 (1914), this Court held: “The term ‘same offense,’ as used in the constitutional provision, does not signify the same offense eo nomine, but the same criminal act, transaction, or omission.” Title 22, O.S.1971, § 14, provides: “No person can be subjected to a second prosecution for a public offense for which he has once been prosecuted and duly convicted or acquitted, except as herein provided for new trials.” In Estep v. State, supra, the foll

1970In Moore v. State, 32 Okl.Cr. 83 , 240 P. 153 , acquittal on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquors was held a bar to a subsequent charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors where both informations alleged the same date and grew out of the same facts.

1970In Moore v. State, 32 Okl.Cr. 83 , 240 P. 153 , acquittal on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquors was held a bar to a subsequent charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors where both informations alleged the same date and grew out of the same facts.

1957The defendant objected to all the evidence, “because it shows that defendant was forced, while under arrest, to furnish evidence against himself in violation of his rights under the Federal and State Constitutions, which provide that no person shall be compelled to furnish evidence against himself.” There Ricketts, to sustain his position, cited two cases, one being Davis v. State, 131 Ala. 10 , 31 So. 569 , which held that: Evidence that defendant declined to consent to the taking away of the shoes which he was wearing, for the purpose of comparing them with tracks supposed to have been made

1957The defendant objected to all the evidence, "because it shows that defendant was forced, while under arrest, to furnish evidence against himself in violation of his rights under the Federal and State Constitutions, which provide that no person shall be compelled to furnish evidence against himself." There Ricketts, to sustain his position, cited two cases, one being Davis v. State, 131 Ala. 10 , 31 So. 569 , which held that: Evidence that defendant declined to consent to the taking away of the shoes which he was wearing, for the purpose of comparing them with tracks supposed to have been made

1926The constitutional guaranty of immunity from a second prosecution is, in its nature, a restraint on the courts, and constitutional provisions for the security of the personal rights of the citizen should be liberally construed.” Thus, in the case of State v. Nutt, 28 Vt. 598 , cited with approval by the Supreme Court of the United States, in, Ex parte Nielsen, 9 S. Ct. 672 , 131 U. S. 176 , 33 L.

1926The constitutional guaranty of immunity from a second prosecution is, in its nature, a restraint on the courts, and constitutional provisions for the security of the personal rights of the citizen should be liberally construed.” Thus, in the case of State v. Nutt, 28 Vt. 598 , cited with approval by the Supreme Court of the United States, in, Ex parte Nielsen, 9 S. Ct. 672 , 131 U. S. 176 , 33 L.

1926The constitutional guaranty of immunity from a second prosecution is, in its nature, a restraint on the courts, and constitutional provisions for the security of the personal rights of the citizen should be liberally construed.” Thus, in the case of State v. Nutt, 28 Vt. 598 , cited with approval by the Supreme Court of the United States, in, Ex parte Nielsen, 9 S. Ct. 672 , 131 U. S. 176 , 33 L.

1925Cr. 523 , 148 P. 1058 , we said: “A plea of former acquittal is sufficient whenever it shows, on its face that the second information is based upon the same criminal act or transaction.

1925The constitutional guaranty of immunity from a second prosecution is, in its nature, a restraint on the courts, and constitutional provisions for the security of the personal rights of the citizen should be liberally construed.” In the case of Jackson v. State, 11 Okla.