11 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rojem v. Stategreen2 sentences2009As the trial court refused to rule on the residual doubt objection, counsel was faced with the expense of a last-minute effort to bring in the witness, knowing that his evidence might well be ruled inadmissible if he appeared. [15] Rojem, 2006 OK CR 7 , ¶ 56 n. 16, 130 P.3d at 298, n. 16 . [16] Rojem, 2006 OK CR 7, ¶ 56 , 130 P.3d at 298-99 . [17] I concurred in result in Rojem2 without writing separately. 2009As the trial court refused to rule on the residual doubt objection, counsel was faced with the expense of a last-minute effort to bring in the witness, knowing that his evidence might well be ruled inadmissible if he appeared. [15] Rojem, 2006 OK CR 7 , ¶ 56 n. 16, 130 P.3d at 298, n. 16 . [16] Rojem, 2006 OK CR 7, ¶ 56 , 130 P.3d at 298-99 . [17] I concurred in result in Rojem2 without writing separately. | 1 | 1 |
Broaddrick v. Stategreen2 sentences1987As I stated in Broaddrick v. State, 706 P.2d 534, 537-38 (Okl.Cr.1985) (Parks, P.J., Specially Concurring): This [is] clearly contrary to 22 O.S.1981, § 834, which states, in pertinent part, that ‘questions of law are to be decided by the court, and questions of fact are to be decided by the jury....’ Our current approach — the practice of this State since time immemorial — has been to require the trial court to give a theory of defense instruction, if requested, when there is any evidence in the record to support the defense, and even if the evidence is discredited. 1987As I stated in Broaddrick v. State, 706 P.2d 534, 537-38 (Okl. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fontenot v. State
green
2 sentences2001However, no corroboration (of a confession) instruction on corpus delicti is needed because we abolished the former "corpus delicti rule" (which pertained to the admission of confessions) with the case of Fontenot v. State, 1994 OK CR 42, ¶ 20 , 881 P.2d 69 . 2001However, no corroboration (of a confession) instruction on corpus delicti is needed because we abolished the former "corpus delicti rule" (which pertained to the admission of confessions) with the case of Fontenot v. State, 1994 OK CR 42, ¶ 20 , 881 P.2d 69 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence1997Scott, 891 P.2d at 1290 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
King v. State
green
2 sentences1994Id. 1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Watson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1931In the case of Watson v. State, 11 Okla. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Marks v. Morris
neutral
1 sentence1924The court refused this instruction, and our court in the opinion by Justice Kennamer holds that this was error, (gee, also, Nutt v. Davidson, 54 Colo. 186 , 131 Pac. 390 .) In the annotation following Beck v. Wilkins-Ricks Co., 9 A. L. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
People v. Wong Loung
green
2 sentences1920We have not overlooked People v. Wong Loung, 159 Cal. 520 , 114 Pac. 829 , cited in defendant’s brief, but cannot assent to the law as announced in said case. 1920We have not overlooked People v. Wong Loung, 159 Cal. 520 , 114 Pac. 829 , cited in defendant’s brief, but cannot assent to the law as announced in said case. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Brock v. State
neutral
1 sentence1916The instruction given by the court rather closely follows the language used by this court in Fire Association of Philadelphia v. Farmers Gin Co., 39 Okla. 162 , 134 Pac. 443 , and in St. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Farmers' Gin Co.
neutral
1 sentence1916The instruction given by the court rather closely follows the language used by this court in Fire Association of Philadelphia v. Farmers Gin Co., 39 Okla. 162 , 134 Pac. 443 , and in St. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Buchanan
green
1 sentence1895Co. v. Buchanan, 35 Ind. 429 .) The refused instruction states, as a proposition of law, that if Baum returned the oats and received pay for same, that such return and repayment was a bar to a recovery for damages. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Burchard v. State
neutral
1 sentence1894State, 2 Ore., 78 .) The defendant complains because the court refused an instruction that it was the duty of Reese Gatliff to prevent Earl Bee Guthrey from striking William Gat-liff on the head with a hatchet, even to the extent of taking the life of said Guthrey. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.