11 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ryder v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn 2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn | 2 | 2 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. 2000The remainder of the venireper-sons were questioned, at defense counsel's request, to determine whether they had violated the court's directives to refrain from watching or reading news reports about the case. {19 In Perry v. State, 893 P.2d 521, 527-528 (Okl.Cr.1995) we quoted to Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct. 330, 382 , 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) 2 in stating: A defendant has a due process right to be present during trial proceedings " 'whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge." "[The prese | 1 | 2 |
Soto-Herrera v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. | 1 | 1 |
Souther v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. | 1 | 1 |
Izquierdo-Salas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. 2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, 119 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 581 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 882 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, 125 , 898 P.2d 521 , 527-28. ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 0.9.1991, $ 588 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Californiagreen1 sentence2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, 119 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 581 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 882 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, 125 , 898 P.2d 521 , 527-28. ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 0.9.1991, $ 588 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. | 1 | 1 |
Bland v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. 2002See also Bland v. State, 2000 OK CR 11, ¶ 19 , 4 P.3d 702, 712 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1099 , 121 S.Ct. 832 , 148 L.Ed.2d 714 (2001); Perry v. State, 1995 OK CR 20, ¶ 25 , 893 P.2d 521, 527-28 . ¶ 10 Appellant also complains that the portions of the voir dire conducted outside his presence violated 22 O.S.1991, § 583 which requires that a defendant be personally present at his trial if the prosecution is for a felony. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn 2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn | 6 | 1992–2018 |
Randall v. State
green
2 sentences2018However, "[t]he defendant's presence is not required where such 'presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.' " Ryder , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d at 864 ( quoting Snyder , 291 U.S. at 106 -07 , 54 S.Ct. at 332 ). ¶8 Although this Court has recognized that the evidentiary hearing held on a motion to withdraw plea is a "critical stage" for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, Randall v. State , 1993 OK CR 47 , ¶ 6, 861 P.2d 314 , 315, we have not recognized that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at such an evidentiary hearing. 2018However, "[t]he defendant's presence is not required where such 'presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.' " Ryder , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d at 864 ( quoting Snyder , 291 U.S. at 106 -07 , 54 S.Ct. at 332 ). ¶8 Although this Court has recognized that the evidentiary hearing held on a motion to withdraw plea is a "critical stage" for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel, Randall v. State , 1993 OK CR 47 , ¶ 6, 861 P.2d 314 , 315, we have not recognized that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at such an evidentiary hearing. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Lockett v. State
green
2 sentences2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn 2018Thus, we have recognized that "a defendant has a due process right to be present where his presence 'bears, or may fairly be assumed to bear, a relation, reasonably substantial, to his opportunity to defend.' " Lockett v. State , 2002 OK CR 30 , ¶ 9, 53 P.3d 418 , 423, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts , 291 U.S. 97 , 106, 54 S.Ct. 330 , 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934). " '[T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only.' " Ryder v. State , 2004 OK CR 2 , ¶ 29, 83 P.3d 856 , 864 ( quoting Sn | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Gagnon
green
2 sentences1994Taken in context, the comments dealt with the proper way to inform the jury Appellant would not be present during this stage of the trial. [4] Gagnon also states that a defendant's Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment may also be implicated in his right to be present during trial. 470 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 1484 ; however, the presence of a defendant is a condition of Due Process only to the extent a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only. 1994Gagnon also states that a defendant's Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment may also be implicated in his right to be present during trial. 470 U.S. at 526 , 105 S.Ct. at 1484 ; however, the presence of a defendant is a condition of Due Process only to the extent a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only. | 2 | 1992–1994 |
Durkee v. Hazan
green
2 sentences1982On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the only fair and just rule is to hold that the lease continues in force unless the period of cessation, viewed in the light of all the circumstances is for an unreasonable time." "The burden of proof showing failure of reasonable diligence in operation is upon the lessor and proof of failure must be clear." Durkee v. Hazan, supra, 814 . 1982On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the only fair and just rule is to hold that the lease continues in force unless the period of cessation, viewed in the light of all the circumstances is for an unreasonable time.” “The burden of proofvshowing failure of reasonable diligence in operation is upon the lessor and proof of failure must be clear.” Durkee v. Hazan, supra, 814 . | 2 | 1982–1982 |
Kerr v. Hillenberg
green
1 sentence1967On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the only fair and just rule is to hold that the lease continues in force unless the period of cessation, viewed in the light of all the circumstances is for an unreasonable time.” Cotner v. Warren, Okl., 330 P.2d 217 ; Kerr v. Hillenberg et al., Okl., 373 P.2d 66 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Cotner v. Warren
green
1 sentence1967On the contrary, we have reached the conclusion that the only fair and just rule is to hold that the lease continues in force unless the period of cessation, viewed in the light of all the circumstances is for an unreasonable time.” Cotner v. Warren, Okl., 330 P.2d 217 ; Kerr v. Hillenberg et al., Okl., 373 P.2d 66 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Tyson v. Surf Oil Co.
green
2 sentences1958One much more favorable to the lessee is followed in Louisiana where, “in order to cancel the lease, there must be some evidence that the wells thereon are no longer capable of producing oil or gas in paying quantities; or that the lessee, in closing down the wells, has done so with the intention of- abandoning same.” Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336, 341 . 1958One much more favorable to the lessee is followed in Louisiana where, “in order to cancel the lease, there must be some evidence that the wells thereon are no longer capable of producing oil or gas in paying quantities; or that the lessee, in closing down the wells, has done so with the intention of- abandoning same.” Tyson v. Surf Oil Co., 195 La. 248 , 196 So. 336, 341 . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.