second proposition error in Oklahoma

1988This Court has strongly condemned such practices; and in extreme cases, has found it necessary to modify sentences, Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234 (Okl.Cr.1978), and reverse convictions, Wright v. State, 325 P.2d 1089 (Okl.Cr.1958).

1988This Court has strongly condemned such practices; and in extreme cases, has found it necessary to modify sentences, Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234 (Okl.Cr. 1978), and reverse convictions, Wright v. State, 325 P.2d 1089 (Okl.

1988This Court has strongly condemned such practices; and in extreme cases, has found it necessary to modify sentences, Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234 (Okl.Cr.1978), and reverse convictions, Wright v. State, 325 P.2d 1089 (Okl.Cr.1958).

1988This Court has strongly condemned such practices; and in extreme cases, has found it necessary to modify sentences, Cooper v. State, 584 P.2d 234 (Okl.Cr. 1978), and reverse convictions, Wright v. State, 325 P.2d 1089 (Okl.

1983To support his argument, the appellant cites Mintz v. State, 593 P.2d 1093 (Okl.Cr.1979).

1983Finally, it is alleged that evidence of another crime committed by the appellant was introduced at trial in violation of Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okl.Cr.1979).

1982Sufficiency of the evidence is a jury question, Woodard v. State, 567 P.2d 512 (Okl.Cr.1977), and as long as there is competent evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant was guilty as charged, this Court will not interfere with the verdict.

1977See, J.T.P. v. State, Okl.Cr., 544 P.2d 1270 (1975); Matter of Sanders, Okl.Cr., 564 P.2d 273 (1977).

1975In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), citing with approval Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed.2d 543 , 555, the Supreme Court of the United States defined probable cause in the following terms: “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with [the arresting officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” For a more in-depth discussion of this p

1975In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), citing with approval Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed.2d 543 , 555, the Supreme Court of the United States defined probable cause in the following terms: “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with [the arresting officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” For a more in-depth discussion of this p

1975In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), citing with approval Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed.2d 543 , 555, the Supreme Court of the United States defined probable cause in the following terms: “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with [the arresting officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” For a more in-depth discussion of this p

1975In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), citing with approval Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed.2d 543 , 555, the Supreme Court of the United States defined probable cause in the following terms: “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with [the arresting officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” For a more in-depth discussion of this p

1975In Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), citing with approval Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed.2d 543 , 555, the Supreme Court of the United States defined probable cause in the following terms: “Probable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances with [the arresting officers’] knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.” For a more in-depth discussion of this p

1974In pressing the first proposition of error, defendant relies on this Court’s decision in Cacy v. State, Okl.Cr., 502 P.2d 1295 (1972), wherein this Court reversed a conviction for the offense of receiving stolen property because of a lack of corroboration.

1973In the very recent decision of Box v. State, Okl.Cr., 505 P.2d 995 (1973), this Court affirmed a judgment and sentence of four years in a Larceny of Domestic Animals case and in the body of the opinion the following language appears: “For the evidence to support a conviction, it is not necessary that there be any eye witness to the actual theft, or a witness who can place the defendant at the scene of the crime.

1973In Fields v. State, Okl.Cr., 364 P.2d 723 , we stated: “Turning to the second proposition of error relating to the admission and exclusion of evidence and other rulings of the trial court we must observe initially that if counsel bases error upon alleged mistakes or errors made during the course of the trial, proper objections must be interposed and preserved in the record before it will be the basis of reversal in instances where no fundamental right of the defendant has been violated.

1972In Bohannon v. State, Okl.Cr., 271 P.2d 739 , the trial court suspended the sentence and fine of the defendant, who was convicted of Omitting to Provide for a Minor Child, upon condition he pay child support of $50.00 per month and an additional $15.-00 per month until all back child support was paid.