certification hearing in Oklahoma

35 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2006 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bledsoe v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1977 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978In Bledsoe v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 235, 237 (1977), it is stated: "[I]t is not necessary to lay a foundation for the admissibility of social reports in a certification hearing. 1978In Bledsoe v. State, Okl.Cr., 572 P.2d 235, 237 (1977), it is stated: “[I]t is not necessary to lay a foundation for the admissibility of social reports in a certification hearing.	3	3
JTP v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1975 · cited in 11 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1976–1980 2 sentences 1980P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270, 1276 (1975), this Court articulated when juvenile confessions are inadmissible: “[T]here is no rational basis for a rule which would permit an illegally obtained confession to be introduced into evidence at a certification hearing when the same confession would be clearly excluded at a delinquency hearing or a criminal trial. 1979Finally, the juvenile contends that the Juvenile Court erred in finding the juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation and that the certification hearing did not follow the guidelines of Kent v. United States, 385 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), and adopted by this Court in J.T.P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975).	2	11
Bruner v. Myersgreen oklacrimapp · 1975 · cited in 3 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1975–1979 2 sentences 1975More recently we stated that a certification hearing in Juvenile Court is “comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution.” Bruner v. Myers, Okl.Cr., 532 P.2d 458, 461 (1975). 1975More recently we stated that a certification hearing in Juvenile Court is "comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution." Bruner v. Myers, Okl.Cr., 532 P.2d 458, 461 (1975).	2	3
Calhoon v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1976 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978See, Calhoon v. State, Okl.Cr., 548 P.2d 1037 (1976). 1978See, Calhoon v. State, Okl.Cr., 548 P.2d 1037 (1976).	2	2
Brown v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1976 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976 2 sentences 1976See J.T.P., supra and Brown, supra. Since the juvenile court still retains jurisdiction over the defendant, a new certification hearing may be held. 1976P., supra and Brown, supra. Since the juvenile court still retains jurisdiction over the defendant, a new certification hearing may be held.	1	2
Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp.green okla · 1998 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 1998 OK 70, ¶ 18 , 969 P.2d 337, 343 (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974)). 2006See Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 1998 OK 70, ¶ 18 , 969 P.2d 337, 343 (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974)).	1	1
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelingreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 1998 OK 70, ¶ 18 , 969 P.2d 337, 343 (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974)). 2006See Black Hawk Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 1998 OK 70, ¶ 18 , 969 P.2d 337, 343 (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974)).	1	1
People v. Taylorgreen colo · 1980 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 1 sentence 1998Answering a similar question, the Supreme Court of Colorado stated that because of the “limited use which can be made of respondent’s statements or testimony at a certification hearing, we hold that due process does not require that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination be extended to Colorado’s civil commitment proceedings to bar the respondent from being called upon to testify or to justify her absence from court during the certification proceedings.” People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1140 (Colo.1980). ¶ 3 In In re D.B.W., 1980 OK 125 , 616 P.2d 1149 , the appellant specifi	1	1
Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc.green okla · 1985 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989See Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc., 695 P.2d 1352, 1356 (Okla.1985). 1989See Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc., 695 P.2d 1352, 1356 (Okla. 1985).	1	1
Linkletter v. Walkerred scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601, 608 (1965), the United States Supreme Court determined there is no absolute rule concerning retroac-tivity. 1979In Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601, 608 (1965), the United States Supreme Court determined there is no absolute rule concerning retroac-tivity.	1	1
Garrison v. Jenningsgreen oklacrimapp · 1974 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 1 sentence 1978See Garrison, supra. It is clear that our opinion today can only operate prospectively.	1	1
LDF v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 1 sentence 1978See, L.D.F. v. State, Okl.Cr., 561 P.2d 114 (1977). *919 Second, until the State's rebuttal case, all of the evidence, including that of the State's witnesses, was either that the defendant was a fit subject to be retained in the juvenile system or that his rehabilitation already had been completed.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (21)

Case	Cited	Years
Matter of JS green oklacrimapp · 1976 2 sentences 1979Since our holding in Matter of J.S. was the logical result of Wofford , which was subsequently overruled by Bennett, we now hold that 22 O.S. 1971 , § 742, does not require corroboration of an accomplice's testimony at the prosecutive merit stage of a certification hearing, and, furthermore, we expressly overrule Matter of J.S., supra. In his third assignment of error, the juvenile contends he was denied due process because the written order certifying him to stand trial as an adult was not made a part of the record until a date after the record on appeal was certified as complete. 1979Since our holding in Matter of J.S. was the logical result of Wofford , which was subsequently overruled by Bennett , we now hold that 22 O.S.1971, § 742, does not require corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony at the prosecutive merit stage of a certification hearing, and, furthermore, we expressly overrule Matter of J.S., supra. In his third assignment of error, the juvenile contends he was denied due process because the written order certifying him to stand trial as an adult was not made a part of the record until a date after the record on appeal was certified as complete.	4	1977–1979
Edwards v. State green oklacrimapp · 1979 2 sentences 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv 1980The prospects for adequate protection of the public if the accused person is processed through the juvenile system." [2] Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 591 P.2d 313 (1979), held that retrospective relief must be granted to those male persons who were prosecuted as adults without benefit of a certification hearing when they were between sixteen and eighteen years of age.	3	1980–1995
Kent v. United States green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1979Finally, the juvenile contends that the Juvenile Court erred in finding the juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation and that the certification hearing did not follow the guidelines of Kent v. United States, 385 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), and adopted by this Court in J.T.P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975). 1979Finally, the juvenile contends that the Juvenile Court erred in finding the juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation and that the certification hearing did not follow the guidelines of Kent v. United States, 385 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), and adopted by this Court in J.T.P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975).	2	1979–1980
Smith v. State green oklacrimapp · 1974 2 sentences 1979The Court has done this in Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 525 P.2d 1251 (1974). [4] The findings made in a certification hearing are very much like those made at a preliminary examination. 1979The Court has done this in Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 525 P.2d 1251 (1974). 4 The findings made in a certification hearing are very much like those made at a preliminary examination.	2	1979–1979
SH v. State green oklacrimapp · 1976 2 sentences 1978On appeal from that judgment, at 555 P.2d 1050 (1976), this Court reversed the conviction for a new certification hearing in keeping with the statutory and case law of the State of Oklahoma. 1978On appeal from that judgment, at 555 P.2d 1050 (1976), this Court reversed the conviction for a new certification hearing in keeping with the statutory and case law of the State of Oklahoma.	2	1978–1978
Kern v. State green oklacrimapp · 1974 2 sentences 1976This case was followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Curreri v. Vice, 77 F.2d 130 . . . ” This Court appears to have used similar reasoning in the case of Kern v. State, Okl.Cr., 522 P.2d 644 (1974), in reaching the conclusion that the testimony of an accomplice needs no corroboration in a certification hearing to determine if a child should stand trial on criminal charges. 1976This case was followed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Curreri v. Vice, 77 F.2d 130 ..." This Court appears to have used similar reasoning in the case of Kern v. State, Okl.Cr., 522 P.2d 644 (1974), in reaching the conclusion that the testimony of an accomplice needs no corroboration in a certification hearing to determine if a child should stand trial on criminal charges.	2	1974–1976
People v. Morris green michctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 . 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 .	2	1975–1975
State v. Piche green wash · 1968 2 sentences 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 . 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 .	2	1975–1975
In Re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4 green arizctapp · 1971 2 sentences 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 . 1975Cf. People v. Morris, 57 Mich. App. 573 , 226 N.W.2d 565 ; In re Anonymous, Juvenile Court No. 6358-4, 14 Ariz. App. 466 , 484 P.2d 235 ; State v. Piche, 74 Wash.2d 9 , 442 P.2d 632 .	2	1975–1975
In Re DBW green okla · 1980 2 sentences 1998Answering a similar question, the Supreme Court of Colorado stated that because of the “limited use which can be made of respondent’s statements or testimony at a certification hearing, we hold that due process does not require that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination be extended to Colorado’s civil commitment proceedings to bar the respondent from being called upon to testify or to justify her absence from court during the certification proceedings.” People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1140 (Colo.1980). ¶ 3 In In re D.B.W., 1980 OK 125 , 616 P.2d 1149 , the appellant specifi 1998Answering a similar question, the Supreme Court of Colorado stated that because of the “limited use which can be made of respondent’s statements or testimony at a certification hearing, we hold that due process does not require that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination be extended to Colorado’s civil commitment proceedings to bar the respondent from being called upon to testify or to justify her absence from court during the certification proceedings.” People v. Taylor, 618 P.2d 1127, 1140 (Colo.1980). ¶ 3 In In re D.B.W., 1980 OK 125 , 616 P.2d 1149 , the appellant specifi	1	1998–1998
Danny Ray Lamb v. Lozier Brown green ca10 · 1972 1 sentence 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv	1	1995–1995
cluster 324758 green ca10 · 1975 1 sentence 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv	1	1995–1995
Fahrig v. Cotterman green pawd · 1975 2 sentences 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv	1	1995–1995
Anderson v. Radcliff green pawd · 1975 1 sentence 1995Thus, the issue is preserved for appeal. [29] Radcliff v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 939 , 95 S.Ct. 1667 , 44 L.Ed.2d 95 (1975); Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972); Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okl.Cr. 1979). [30] Although Hooker has repeatedly sought an evidentiary hearing on this issue in both state and federal court and specifically requested a hearing in his brief before this Court, at the hearing and in a supplemental brief filed with this Court on June 14, 1994, Hooker now claims that the certification hearing could not be held retrospectiv	1	1995–1995
Miller v. State green oklacrimapp · 1981 1 sentence 1983In Miller v. State, 629 P.2d 370 (Okl.Cr.1981), this Court stated that a challenge of this type must be by post conviction application in the sentencing court and, if the appellant does not follow such procedure, the conviction can be used to enhance punishment.	1	1983–1983
Tims v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1974 1 sentence 1979Tims v. State, Okl.Cr., 525 P.2d 1227 (1974); Stidham v. State, Okl.Cr., 507 P.2d 1312 (1973).	1	1979–1979
Stidham v. State green oklacrimapp · 1973 1 sentence 1979Tims v. State, Okl.Cr., 525 P.2d 1227 (1974); Stidham v. State, Okl.Cr., 507 P.2d 1312 (1973).	1	1979–1979
T. D. B. v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1977 1 sentence 1977Appellant was charged with “[effecting] the death of Anna Maxfield by means of beating the said Anna Maxfield with his hands and fists and/or other dangerous weapons, striking and beating her about the head and body with force and violence, while engaged in the commission of the crime of forcible rape.” He was certified to stand trial as an adult for this crime in Case No. JF-76-108, and in T.D.B. v. State, Okl.Cr., 561 P.2d 577 (1977), this Court reversed for further proceedings on the ground that the original petition was improperly verified. *1308 The following evidence was presented at the	1	1977–1977
Crum v. State green oklacrimapp · 1963	1	1976–1976
Curreri v. Vice green ca9 · 1935	1	1976–1976
Freshour v. Turner green oklacrimapp · 1972	1	1973–1973

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112 (21) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1104.2 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1109 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1431 (4) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 701.7 (3) OK § Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1053 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 235 (1951–2026) IL 89 (1975–2026) PA 68 (1966–2024) LA 50 (1937–2025) CA 38 (1960–2025) OK 35 (1973–2006) NY 22 (1958–2025) OH 19 (1981–2024) GA 17 (1982–2025) NJ 16 (1979–2024) NV 14 (1969–2024) MO 13 (1926–2024) CT 12 (1991–2025) NC 11 (1980–2020) DC 11 (1963–2022) UT 11 (1982–2025) MN 11 (2000–2016) CO 11 (1980–2021) FL 10 (1980–2025) MD 10 (1983–2020) AL 10 (1985–2012) AR 10 (1987–2016) KS 10 (1992–2012) MI 10 (1986–2022) ND 9 (1982–2025) MS 8 (1991–2016) TN 7 (2012–2025) HI 6 (1971–2025) KY 6 (2018–2022) MA 6 (1982–2014) IN 6 (1896–2012) ID 5 (1978–2009) WA 5 (2002–2026) NH 5 (1982–1997) VA 5 (2001–2025) ME 4 (1997–2019) OR 4 (1995–2016) IA 4 (1989–2009) RI 3 (1991–2004) NM 3 (2004–2010) MT 2 (1989–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check