conviction violation in Oklahoma

1940Cr. 58 , 278 P. 1117 , this court held: “In a prosecution for murder when the court submits the issue and the jury findis the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, although under the law and the facts the crime is murder, yet, if defendant is convicted of a lower degree of homicide than that shown by the evidence, no prejudice could have resulted to' him, and this court will not reverse a conviction because of such error.” “Manslaughter in the first degree” is defined as follows : “1.

1937Cr. 58 , 278 Pac. 1117 , this court held: “In a prosecution for murder when the court submits the issue and the jury finds the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, although under the law and the facts the crime is murder, yet, if defendant is convicted of a lower degree of homicide than that shown by the evidence, no prejudice could have resulted to him, and' this court will not reverse a conviction because of such error.” *313 “Manslaughter in the first degree” is defined as follows^ “1.

2004City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 412 , 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1136 , 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978) (the Court refused to afford the city the same deference it gave the states, explaining that cities are not sovereign and hence not free to pursue their parochial interests via anti-competitive conduct).

2004City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U.S. 389, 412 , 98 S.Ct. 1123, 1136 , 55 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978) (the Court refused to afford the city the same deference it gave the states, explaining that cities are not sovereign and hence not free to pursue their parochial interests via anti-competitive conduct).

1976With regard to the necessity for corroboration in such cases, this Court stated in the first paragraph of the Syllabus to White v. State, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 310 (1954): “A conviction for a violation of Title 21, § 1123, O.S.1951, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecu-trix, nevertheless in a case where the evidence may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible, there must be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts to sustain conviction.” In further discussing the n

1971In Miller v. State, Okl.Cr., 418 P.2d 220 , this Court held: “A conviction for a violation of Title 21, Okl.St.Ann., § 1123, supra, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix, unless the testimony may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible.

2009Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 768 (BIA 2009) Interim Decision #3637 Matter of Juan Carlos ZORILLA-VIDAL, Respondent File A045 240 272 - Miami, Florida Decided March 20, 2009 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Outside the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a conviction for criminal solicitation under a State’s general purpose solicitation statute is a conviction for a violation of a law “relating to a controlled substance” under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 122

2009Matter of Beltran, 20 I&N Dec. 521 (BIA 1992), reaffirmed.

1977As authority he cites Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313 (1966), which says in Syllabus number four: “Testimony of city police officers in municipal criminal court prosecution that offense of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor occurred on certain streets in the city of Tulsa, did not satisfy requirement that record reflect the offense occurred within corporate limits, for lack of proper showing of ordinance fixing limits. 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 493; 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 11-902.” However, Goeppinger goes on to cite with approval Sawyer

1977As authority he cites Goeppinger v. State, Okl.Cr., 414 P.2d 313 (1966), which says in Syllabus number four: “Testimony of city police officers in municipal criminal court prosecution that offense of being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor occurred on certain streets in the city of Tulsa, did not satisfy requirement that record reflect the offense occurred within corporate limits, for lack of proper showing of ordinance fixing limits. 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 493; 47 Okl.St.Ann. § 11-902.” However, Goeppinger goes on to cite with approval Sawyer

1976How about again in 1968, for no driver’s license and excessive — ” (Tr. 126, 127, 128) As stated in Hampshire v. City of Tulsa, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 577 , (1972), it is the general rule in Oklahoma that a conviction for violation of a municipal ordinance is not a crime and may not be used to impeach the credibility of the witness, unless the violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes an offense under the State law.

1976Under the majority decision of this Court in Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 523 P.2d 1134 (1974), and the authority therein collected, the cross-examination of the defendant upon the issue of his pretrial silence was held to be clearly improper.

1976With regard to the necessity for corroboration in such cases, this Court stated in the first paragraph of the Syllabus to White v. State, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 310 (1954): “A conviction for a violation of Title 21, § 1123, O.S.1951, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecu-trix, nevertheless in a case where the evidence may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible, there must be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts to sustain conviction.” In further discussing the n

1976With regard to the necessity for corroboration in such cases, this Court stated in the first paragraph of the Syllabus to White v. State, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 310 (1954): “A conviction for a violation of Title 21, § 1123, O.S.1951, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecu-trix, nevertheless in a case where the evidence may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible, there must be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts to sustain conviction.” In further discussing the n

1976With regard to the necessity for corroboration in such cases, this Court stated in the first paragraph of the Syllabus to White v. State, Okl.Cr., 268 P.2d 310 (1954): “A conviction for a violation of Title 21, § 1123, O.S.1951, for lewd, indecent acts by an adult person as to a child under 14 years of age may be sustained upon the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecu-trix, nevertheless in a case where the evidence may appear inherently improbable and almost incredible, there must be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts to sustain conviction.” In further discussing the n

1975In Brannin v. State, Okl.Cr., 375 P.2d 276 (1962), this Court set forth the necessary elements which must be proven before the State can obtain a conviction for a violation of unlawful sale of intoxi-ating beverage as follows: (1) that the accused is the owner or operator of the establishment where intoxicating liquor is (2) sold or offered for sale by the drink, and, (3) kept for sale for consumption on the premises.

1972Flanagan v. Oklahoma Railway Company, 201 Okl. 362 , 206 P.2d 190 (1949).

1972Flanagan v. Oklahoma Railway Company, 201 Okl. 362 , 206 P.2d 190 (1949).

1970The case is reversed and remanded.” In Hall v. State, 51 Okl.Cr. 50 , 299 P. 508, 509 , impeachment was permitted of a defendant’s answers on cross-examination relative to collateral matters, and this Court again reversed the conviction for such error, and gave an indication of the test for determining whether impeachment is proper: “All of this testimony was irrelevant on the question of the' guilt or innocence of the defendant of the particular offense charged, as no connection whatever is shown between the declarations of the defendant as testified to by those witnesses and the offense char

1970The case is reversed and remanded.” In Hall v. State, 51 Okl.Cr. 50 , 299 P. 508, 509 , impeachment was permitted of a defendant’s answers on cross-examination relative to collateral matters, and this Court again reversed the conviction for such error, and gave an indication of the test for determining whether impeachment is proper: “All of this testimony was irrelevant on the question of the' guilt or innocence of the defendant of the particular offense charged, as no connection whatever is shown between the declarations of the defendant as testified to by those witnesses and the offense char

1961In Bird v. State, Okl.Cr., 362 P.2d 117, 118 , we said: “Before the Court of Criminal Appeals can reverse a conviction for error in admission or rejecting of evidence, it must find from an inspection of the entire record that appellant was injured thereby, and to determine that issue it must consider whether appellant is guilty of the offense charged.” In the fourth contention it is urged that the trial court erred in permitting introduction of the information in the prior conviction,, because the allegations in the in *513 formation emphasized the details of the crime.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1961Jones v. State, 20 Okl.Cr. 154 , 201 P. 664 ; Jackson v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 138 , 179 P.2d 924 ; Stokes v. State, 86 Okl.Cr. 21 , 189 P.2d 424 , 190 P.2d 838 , and many other cases to the same effect.

1950Gentry v. State, 85 Okla.

1948State v. Smith, 83 Okla.

1939Cr. 431 , 287 P. 1068, 1069 , being a case where the party was charged with the violation of the prohibitory liquor laws, wherein the court held: “The district court had jurisdiction of the charge only in the event that there had been a previous conviction of a violation of the liquor law.

1934This court, in Manning v. State, 7 Okla.

1929Only one contention is made by the defendant, which is stated in his brief: “All the errors may be submitted to this court together as the defendant is resting on one single proposition: That there is no competent legal evidence of a former conviction of the violation of the Prohibitory Liquor Laws of the State of Oklahoma admitted in evidence.” In the case of John Bassett v. State, 42 Okla.

1929Cr. 126 , 274 Pac. 893 , Edwards, P. J., speaking for the court, passed on the precise question involved in this case: “In a prosecution under the statute here involved (Section 6991) [Comp.

1921We think the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under the rule announced by this court in case of Price v. State, 9 Okla.

1921Cr. 359 , 131 Pac. 1102 , and that the punishment imposed is not excessive when considered in connection with all the evidence of defendant’s guilt.

1920Cr. 70 , 180 Pac. 718 , the conviction of error is well founded and ,should be sustained.