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.
16 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spuehler v. Stategreen2 sentences2008When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 . . 2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 9 | 11 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 3 |
In Re Tidwellgreen2 sentences2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Shepard v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth Earl Crowden v. George Bowen, and the Attorney General of the State of Alabamagreen1 sentence2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Gelis v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Marvin Lee Hill v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Floridagreen1 sentence2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Evan Arthur Hook v. State of Arizonagreen1 sentence2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Flores v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, 2008Flores v. State, 1995 OK CR 9, ¶ 4 , 896 P.2d 558, 560 (where the defendant fails to object and submit alternative instructions, review is limited to plain error). [3] When determining a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, "the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202, | 1 | 1 |
Atterberry v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Court Opinion, p. 909. [9] In Atterberry v. State, 1986 OK CR 186 , 731 P.2d 420, 422 , this Court recognized: In a criminal prosecution, the trial court has the duty to correctly instruct on the salient features of the law raised by the evidence without a request by the defendant.... 2004See Court Opinion, p. 909. [9] In Atterberry v. State, 1986 OK CR 186 , 731 P.2d 420, 422 , this Court recognized: In a criminal prosecution, the trial court has the duty to correctly instruct on the salient features of the law raised by the evidence without a request by the defendant.... | 1 | 1 |
Banks v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Banks v. State, 728 P.2d 497, 501 (Okl.Cr.1986). 1995Banks v. State, 728 P.2d 497, 501 (Okl.Cr. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fisher v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cummings v. State
green
2 sentences2007The State's brief quotes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Pink in their entirety. [41] Id. at ¶ 20, 104 P.3d at 592 (citing cases). [42] The opinion initially refers to "four . . . aspects of Glossip's involvement, . . . which point to his guilt: motive, concealment of the crime, intended flight, and . . . his control over Sneed." Yet after reviewing the evidence on these four issues, the opinion concludes that this evidence, "taken together," is not merely indicative of guilt under a traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, it is adequate to "corroborate Sneed's story about Glossip's involvem 2007The State's brief quotes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Pink in their entirety. [41] Id. at ¶ 20, 104 P.3d at 592 (citing cases). [42] The opinion initially refers to "four . . . aspects of Glossip's involvement, . . . which point to his guilt: motive, concealment of the crime, intended flight, and . . . his control over Sneed." Yet after reviewing the evidence on these four issues, the opinion concludes that this evidence, "taken together," is not merely indicative of guilt under a traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, it is adequate to "corroborate Sneed's story about Glossip's involvem | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pink v. State
green
1 sentence2007The State's brief quotes paragraphs 15 and 16 of Pink in their entirety. [41] Id. at ¶ 20, 104 P.3d at 592 (citing cases). [42] The opinion initially refers to "four . . . aspects of Glossip's involvement, . . . which point to his guilt: motive, concealment of the crime, intended flight, and . . . his control over Sneed." Yet after reviewing the evidence on these four issues, the opinion concludes that this evidence, "taken together," is not merely indicative of guilt under a traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, it is adequate to "corroborate Sneed's story about Glossip's involvem | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Robinson v. State
green
2 sentences1995Id. 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.