adheres rule in Oklahoma

1953Cr. 102 , 197 P. 1064, 1068 , we said: ‘This court adheres to the rule that a conviction cannot be had on the extrajudicial confessions of the defendant without independent evidence of the corpus delicti, and, before such confessions should be admitted, there should be evidence prima facie sufficient to show that the offense to which the confessions relates has been committed. * * *’ ” Herein the evidence of the state in chief establishes the crime charged by some one, through contracts in the company files which were “clearly forgeries” etc., the circumstances indicate it was committed by the

1949Cr. 102 , 197 P. 1064, 1068 , we said: “This court adheres to the rule that a conviction cannot be had on the extrajudicial confessions of the defendant without independent evidence of the corpus delicti, and, before such confessions should be admitted, there should be evidence prima facie sufficient to show that the offense to which the confession relates has been committed. * * * In passing upon the evidence submitted to them the jury must first determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed; then they are at liberty to give the alleged confession such weight as it is

1949Cr. 102 , 197 P. 1064, 1068 , we said: “This court adheres to the rule that a conviction cannot be had on the extrajudicial confessions of the defendant without independent evidence of the corpus delicti, and, before such confessions should be admitted, there should be evidence prima facie sufficient to show that the offense to which the confession relates has been committed. * * * In passing upon the evidence submitted to them the jury must first determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed; then they are at liberty to give the alleged confession such weight as it is

1945Cr. 102 , 197 P. 1064, 1068 , we said: “This court adheres to the rule that a conviction cannot be had on the extrajudicial confessions of the defendant without independent evidence of the corpus de-licti, and, before such confessions should be admitted, there should be evidence prima facie sufficient to show that the offense to which the confession relates has been committed. * * * In passing upon the evidence submitted to them the jury must first determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed; then they are at liberty to give the alleged confession such weight as it is

1988Goodwin v. State, 730 P.2d 1202 (Okl.Cr.1986).

1967Wills v. Dissing, Okl., 356 P.2d 339 ; Matthew's v. Acacia Mut.

1959The court adheres to the rule as stated in Sholes v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 158 , 260 P.2d 440 , 447: “Where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was guilty as charged, this court will not interfere with verdict even if there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.” We have carefully reviewed the record of the entire proceedings in the case at bar and find no error of such a nature as to justify re

1959The court adheres to the rule as stated in Sholes v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 158 , 260 P.2d 440 , 447: “Where there is competent evidence in the record from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant was guilty as charged, this court will not interfere with verdict even if there is a sharp conflict in the evidence and different inferences may be drawn therefrom since it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the facts.” We have carefully reviewed the record of the entire proceedings in the case at bar and find no error of such a nature as to justify re

1932This court adheres to the rule of law announced by it in Re Initiative Petition No. 23, State Question No. 38, 35 Okla. 49 , 127 P. 862 , decided October 8, 1912.

1932This court adheres to the rule of law announced by it in Re Initiative Petition No. 23, State Question No. 38, 35 Okla. 49 , 127 P. 862 , decided October 8, 1912.

1922The plaintiffs, Edd'ie Harrison et al., prosecute this appeal to reverse the judgment of the trial court, and counsel for the respective parties have filed a written stipulation wherein 'it is agreed that the only question involved in this appeal is whether a noncit-izen father of deceased Creek freedmen allot-tees, who died subsequent 'to the admission of Oklahoma as a state, is precluded from ‘inheriting from his children their allotted lands under the provisos of section 6 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement of June 30, 1902. (32 Stat. L. 500, c. 1323). qualifying c. 49 of Mansfield’s Diges

1922The plaintiffs, Edd'ie Harrison et al., prosecute this appeal to reverse the judgment of the trial court, and counsel for the respective parties have filed a written stipulation wherein 'it is agreed that the only question involved in this appeal is whether a noncit-izen father of deceased Creek freedmen allot-tees, who died subsequent 'to the admission of Oklahoma as a state, is precluded from ‘inheriting from his children their allotted lands under the provisos of section 6 of the Supplemental Creek Agreement of June 30, 1902. (32 Stat. L. 500, c. 1323). qualifying c. 49 of Mansfield’s Diges

1909In the case of Oxier v. United States, 1 Ind. T. 91 , 38 S. W. 332 , Judge Lewis says: “The later and the sounder and the better yule is believed to be that which makes the presumption, arising from the possession of recently stolen property, not a presumption of law, but of fact; in other words, an inference to be drawn or not, as the jury may determine in the light of all the evidence.’ ” “This court cites with approval in this • connection the case of Blair v. Territory, 15 Okla. 550 , 82 Pac. 653 , and holds: ‘The instruction complained of was upon the weight of. the evidence, which is for

1909In the case of Oxier v. United States, 1 Ind. T. 91 , 38 S. W. 332 , Judge Lewis says: “The later and the sounder and the better yule is believed to be that which makes the presumption, arising from the possession of recently stolen property, not a presumption of law, but of fact; in other words, an inference to be drawn or not, as the jury may determine in the light of all the evidence.’ ” “This court cites with approval in this • connection the case of Blair v. Territory, 15 Okla. 550 , 82 Pac. 653 , and holds: ‘The instruction complained of was upon the weight of. the evidence, which is for

1909Cr. 275 , 98 Pac. 110 , we find the same principle clearly stated by the Supreme Court of Arkansas as follows": “Evidence was adduced at the trial tending to prove .that the defendant denied having in his possession any of the stolen goods, and that, immediately after this denial, and soon after the larceny was committed, a part of them was found in his possession.