Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
31 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1943–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011We review these claims for plain error only, which this Court has defined as error "going to the foundation of the case or taking from the defendant a right essential to his defense." Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 12 , 876 P.2d 690, 695 . ¶ 29 Appellant bases his argument for these lesser-included offense instructions on his alleged intoxication at the time of the crimes. 2011We review these claims for plain error only, which this Court has defined as error "going to the foundation of the case or taking from the defendant a right essential to his defense." Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 12 , 876 P.2d 690, 695 . ¶ 29 Appellant bases his argument for these lesser-included offense instructions on his alleged intoxication at the time of the crimes. | 3 | 11 |
Willingham v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Willingham, 947 P.2d at 1088 . ¶84 Wilson finally complains that the victim impact evidence in this case served as nothing more than a “superaggravator.” We have previously held that victim impact evidence is very different and serves a different purpose than aggravation evidence. 1998See Willingham, 947 P.2d at 1088 . ¶ 85 Brown finally complains that the victim impact evidence in this case served as nothing more than a "superaggravator." We have previously held that victim impact evidence is very different and serves a different purpose than aggravation evidence. | 3 | 3 |
West v. Stategreen2 sentences1994See West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr.1988). 1994See West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr. 1988). | 2 | 6 |
Tucker v. Stategreen2 sentences1991West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr.1988); Tucker v. State, 675 P.2d 459 (Okl.Cr.1984). 1991West v. State, 764 P.2d 528 (Okl.Cr.1988); Tucker v. State, 675 P.2d 459 (Okl.Cr.1984). | 2 | 4 |
Valdez v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Valdez v. State, 1995 OK CR 18, f. 6 , 900 P.2d 363, 369, f. 6 . (plain errors are errors which counsel failed to preserve through a trial objection, but which upon appellate review, are clear from *534 the record and affect substantial rights), Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 23 , 876 P.2d 690, 698 (plain error is an error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense). ¶ 11 Jones also complains the trial court's decision to remove another juror for cause, over defense counsel's objection, violated his federal constitutional righ 2006Valdez v. State, 1995 OK CR 18, f. 6 , 900 P.2d 363, 369, f. 6 . (plain errors are errors which counsel failed to preserve through a trial objection, but which upon appellate review, are clear from *534 the record and affect substantial rights), Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 23 , 876 P.2d 690, 698 (plain error is an error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense). ¶ 11 Jones also complains the trial court's decision to remove another juror for cause, over defense counsel's objection, violated his federal constitutional righ | 2 | 2 |
Staggs v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Staggs, 804 P.2d at 457 . 1994Staggs v. State, 804 P.2d 456 (Okl.Cr. 1991). | 1 | 3 |
Roberts v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Roberts v. State, 2001 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 16-17 , 29 P.3d 583, 588-89 . 2004See Roberts v. State, 2001 OK CR 14, ¶¶ 16-17 , 29 P.3d 583, 588-89 . | 1 | 1 |
Negin v. Picher Lumber Co.green1 sentence1952See Jones v. State, 77 Okla. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrison v. State
green
2 sentences1989"Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense." Id. 1989“Fundamental error is error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” Id. | 3 | 1943–1989 |
Cleary v. State
green
2 sentences1998“Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. 1998“Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
McBroom v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
green
2 sentences1998"Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense." Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. 1998“Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Roberts v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998"Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense." Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. 1998“Plain error is that error which goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from a defendant a right essential to his defense.” Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). ¶ 68 We find that the answer did not rise to the level of plain error. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Stowe v. State
green
2 sentences1987In accord, Stowe v. State, 397 P.2d 693 (Okl.Cr. 1964). 1987In accord, Stowe v. State, 397 P.2d 693 (Okl.Cr.1964). | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Grissom v. State
green
2 sentences2012(Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 28 , 253 P.3d at 980 (citing Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 12 , 876 P.2d 690, 695 ). ¶ 3 Plain error provides a very limited avenue of appellate review. 2012(Grissom, 2011 OK CR 3, ¶ 28 , 253 P.3d at 980 (citing Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 12 , 876 P.2d 690, 695 ). ¶ 3 Plain error provides a very limited avenue of appellate review. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stouffer v. State
green
1 sentence2008Stouffer, 2006 OK CR 1 147 P.3d at 265 . 12 . 12 0.$.2001, § 2611 reads: A. Subject to subsection B of this section, the court shall exercise control over the manner and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: 1. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Andrew v. State
green
2 sentences2008Therefore, the introduction of this testimony did not go to the foundation of the case or take from Williams a right essential to his defense. 12 O.S.2001, § 2104; Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 24 , 164 P.3d 176, 188 . 2008Therefore, the introduction of this testimony did not go to the foundation of the case or take from Williams a right essential to his defense. 12 O.S.2001, § 2104; Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23, ¶ 24 , 164 P.3d 176, 188 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Blonner v. State
green
1 sentence2008Stouffer, 2006 OK CR 1 147 P.3d at 265 . 12 . 12 0.$.2001, § 2611 reads: A. Subject to subsection B of this section, the court shall exercise control over the manner and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: 1. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Agostino v. United States
green
1 sentence1998Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, ¶ 81 , 942 P.2d 736, 752 , cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1079 , 118 S.Ct. 1528 , 140 L.Ed.2d 679 (1998). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Roe
green
2 sentences1943Where it appears and justice requires, this court will consider it whether or not exceptions are taken in the court below or whether or not it be assigned as error on appeal.” See, also, Tyler v. State, supra. The rule which should apply to the facts in the instant ease and the reasons therefor are so well stated in the case of People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548 , 209 P. 560 , we quote it: “While there may be exceptional cases in which an inapplicable instruction will not prejudice defendant, when it is clear that such instructions are well calculated to mislead the jury, and in all likelihood affect 1943Where it appears and justice requires, this court will consider it whether or not exceptions are taken in the court below or whether or not it be assigned as error on appeal.” See, also, Tyler v. State, supra. The rule which should apply to the facts in the instant ease and the reasons therefor are so well stated in the case of People v. Roe, 189 Cal. 548 , 209 P. 560 , we quote it: “While there may be exceptional cases in which an inapplicable instruction will not prejudice defendant, when it is clear that such instructions are well calculated to mislead the jury, and in all likelihood affect | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.