record reveals defense in Oklahoma

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1 : “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defendants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” ‘Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . ‘Th

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1: “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defend *1402 ants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra. The record reveals that the defense counsel fo

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1 : “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defendants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” ‘Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . ‘Th

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1: “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defend *1402 ants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra. The record reveals that the defense counsel fo

2010Keel v. Wright, 1995 OK 18 , 890 P.2d 1351 ; City of Norman v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2875, 2006 OK CIV APP 137, ¶ 3 , 146 P.3d 872 . 19 Byers subsequently filed a "Motion To Strike Hearing," which motion the trial court denied at the commencement of the December 22, 2008 hearing.

2010Keel v. Wright, 1995 OK 18 , 890 P.2d 1351 ; City of Norman v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2875, 2006 OK CIV APP 137, ¶ 3 , 146 P.3d 872 . 19 Byers subsequently filed a "Motion To Strike Hearing," which motion the trial court denied at the commencement of the December 22, 2008 hearing.

2010Keel v. Wright, 1995 OK 18 , 890 P.2d 1351 ; City of Norman v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2875, 2006 OK CIV APP 137, ¶ 3 , 146 P.3d 872 . 19 Byers subsequently filed a "Motion To Strike Hearing," which motion the trial court denied at the commencement of the December 22, 2008 hearing.

2010Keel v. Wright, 1995 OK 18 , 890 P.2d 1351 ; City of Norman v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 2875, 2006 OK CIV APP 137, ¶ 3 , 146 P.3d 872 . 19 Byers subsequently filed a "Motion To Strike Hearing," which motion the trial court denied at the commencement of the December 22, 2008 hearing.

1996This Court has held that “where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not.” Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert, denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1996This Court has held that "where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not." Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1996This Court has held that “where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not.” Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert, denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1996This Court has held that "where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not." Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1996This Court has held that “where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not.” Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert, denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1996This Court has held that "where the evidence warrants a lesser included offense instruction a defendant is entitled to the same whether requested or not." Boyd v. State, 839 P.2d 1363, 1367 (Okl.Cr.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 3005 , 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993).

1988Our review of the record reveals that defense counsel afforded the appellant a comprehensive and effective defense sufficient to meet the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

1988Our review of the record reveals that defense counsel afforded the appellant a comprehensive and effective defense sufficient to meet the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

1975Cr. 223, 119 P.2d 874 (1941), wherein in the third paragraph of the Syllabus this Court enunciated the following rule that: “Where objection is sustained to improper questions of the assistant county attorney, case will not be reversed where no prejudice was caused defendant.” The record reveals that the defense counsel’s objection to the questions propounded to the defendant was sustained by the court and the defendant did not answer said questions.

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1 : “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defendants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” ‘Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . ‘Th

1973In the case of Fugett v. State, Okl.Cr., 461 P.2d 1002 (1969) this Court held in Syllabus 1 : “In a trial where several defendants are jointly prosecuted, it is error to admit the confession of one of the co-defendants, made outside the presence of the others, implicating them, and such error is not cured by the court’s instruction that the confession should be considered only in determining the confessor’s guilt and not considered as to the others.” ‘Also see Phillips v. State, Okl.Cr., 330 P.2d 209 (1958) and Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 . ‘Th

1970In Bolon v. Smith, 170 Okl. 407 , 40 P.2d 677 , it was held: “If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. *918 [Marland Refining Co. v. Harrel, 167 Okl. 548 , 31 P.2d 121 .]” See also Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520 , and other cases cited there

1970In Bolon v. Smith, 170 Okl. 407 , 40 P.2d 677 , it was held: “If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. *918 [Marland Refining Co. v. Harrel, 167 Okl. 548 , 31 P.2d 121 .]” See also Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520 , and other cases cited there

1970In Bolon v. Smith, 170 Okl. 407 , 40 P.2d 677 , it was held: “If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. *918 [Marland Refining Co. v. Harrel, 167 Okl. 548 , 31 P.2d 121 .]” See also Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520 , and other cases cited there

1970In Bolon v. Smith, 170 Okl. 407 , 40 P.2d 677 , it was held: “If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. *918 [Marland Refining Co. v. Harrel, 167 Okl. 548 , 31 P.2d 121 .]” See also Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520 , and other cases cited there

1970In Bolon v. Smith, 170 Okl. 407 , 40 P.2d 677 , it was held: “If a defendant, after its demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff has been overruled, does not stand upon the demurrer but puts in its evidence, it waives the demurrer, and if it does not move for a directed verdict after the parties have finally rested, it cannot urge against an adverse verdict that the evidence was insufficient to establish a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff. *918 [Marland Refining Co. v. Harrel, 167 Okl. 548 , 31 P.2d 121 .]” See also Richardson v. Shaw, Okl., 313 P.2d 520 , and other cases cited there

1965This Court held in the case of Camp v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 70 , 239 P.2d 1036 : “Where an objection to improper argument is sustained and the jury admonished not to consider the same such argument may not constitute reversible error.” Defendant further complains of the testimony of Officer Bill Forney, wherein he made two inflammatory remarks — on page 90 of the casemade he stated, “I felt like the other people were probably more important than him.

1965This Court held in the case of Camp v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 70 , 239 P.2d 1036 : “Where an objection to improper argument is sustained and the jury admonished not to consider the same such argument may not constitute reversible error.” Defendant further complains of the testimony of Officer Bill Forney, wherein he made two inflammatory remarks — on page 90 of the casemade he stated, “I felt like the other people were probably more important than him.

1950It has often been held that the failure to except to the giving of an instruction constitutes a waiver of the right to question the same.” In syllabus 2, it was said: “Where instructions are given by the court and no exceptions are taken thereto, and defendant offers no requested instructions, this court will examine the instructions to see if the defendant has been deprived of a fundamental right before reversing the case by reason of the instruction given.” To the same effect is Chapman v. State, 84 Okla.