5 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Williams , 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 39, 188 P.3d at 219. ¶10 This proposition presents a unique legal challenge to our ability to interpret the identity exception set out in § 2404(B) in such a manner that the exception does not swallow the rule. 2020Williams , 2008 OK CR 19, ¶ 39, 188 P.3d at 219. ¶10 This proposition presents a unique legal challenge to our ability to interpret the identity exception set out in § 2404(B) in such a manner that the exception does not swallow the rule. | 2 | 2 |
James v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Owens v. State, 2010 OK CR 1, ¶ 14 , 229 P.3d 1261, 1266-1267 ; see also, Williams, 2008 *165 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 188 P.3d at 219 ("[e]vidence that the defendant committed another crime is admissible to show identity under the common scheme or plan exception when the previous crime prepares the way for another and the second crime is dependent on the commission of the first"); James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 3 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 (holding that for other crimes evidence to be admissible under the common scheme and plan exception, "[t]here must be a visible connection between the other crimes eviden 2012Owens v. State, 2010 OK CR 1, ¶ 14 , 229 P.3d 1261, 1266-1267 ; see also, Williams, 2008 *165 OK CR 19, ¶ 38, 188 P.3d at 219 ("[e]vidence that the defendant committed another crime is admissible to show identity under the common scheme or plan exception when the previous crime prepares the way for another and the second crime is dependent on the commission of the first"); James v. State, 2007 OK CR 1, ¶ 3 , 152 P.3d 255, 257 (holding that for other crimes evidence to be admissible under the common scheme and plan exception, "[t]here must be a visible connection between the other crimes eviden | 1 | 1 |
Lafayette v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Lafayette v. State, 1985 OK CR 5, ¶ 15 , 694 P.2d 530, 532 . ¶ 42 We note that in this case, the written instruction did not specifically list the identity exception, setting out that the evidence was received on the issue of the defendants alleged motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan. | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. Stategreen2 sentences1980See Warner v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1284 (1977). 1980See Warner v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1284 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
Burks v. Stategreen2 sentences1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). 1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Owens v. State
green
2 sentences2012While both of these crimes may have had some superficial similarities as nighttime burglaries of occupied dwellings, "[s]imilar, but independent crimes are not admissible." Owens, 2010 OK CR 1, ¶ 15 , 229 P.3d at 1267 . ¶ 16 Nevertheless, this Court has recognized that separate offenses characterized by a "highly peculiar method" of operation suffice to show a common scheme because a "highly peculiar method" may constitute a unique signature that goes to the identity exception of Section 2404(B). 2012While both of these crimes may have had some superficial similarities as nighttime burglaries of occupied dwellings, "[s]imilar, but independent crimes are not admissible." Owens, 2010 OK CR 1, ¶ 15 , 229 P.3d at 1267 . ¶ 16 Nevertheless, this Court has recognized that separate offenses characterized by a "highly peculiar method" of operation suffice to show a common scheme because a "highly peculiar method" may constitute a unique signature that goes to the identity exception of Section 2404(B). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Brown v. Brown
green
1 sentence1995We find that the complete bar rule fails to effectively achieve the objectives of the UCATA and fails to recognize the Legislature intended to abolish the old common law rule and abrogate the view espoused by this Court in Broum v. Brown, supra. Under the complete bar rule, an injured party may unknowingly surrender a cause of action which was never fully compensated simply because a boilerplate release was used. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Burks v. State
neutral
2 sentences1980The decision in Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 (1977), also illustrates an ap propriate situation for the use of the identity exception. 1980The decision in Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 568 P.2d 1311 (1977), also illustrates an appropriate *1325 situation for the use of the identity exception. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Buchanan v. State
green
2 sentences1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). 1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Bray v. State
green
2 sentences1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). 1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wollaston v. State
neutral
2 sentences1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). 1980See Burks v. State, Okl.Cr., 594 P.2d 771 (1979); Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 483 P.2d 1180 (1971); Bray v. State, Okl.Cr., 450 P.2d 512 (1969); Roulston v. State, supra; Wollaston v. State, Okl.Cr., 358 P.2d 1111 (1961). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.