uniform instruction in Oklahoma

2023City of Tulsa v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System , 1963 OK 267, ¶ 8 , 387 P.2d 255, 258 .

2023City of Tulsa v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System , 1963 OK 267, ¶ 8 , 387 P.2d 255, 258 .

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023"We require prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7, ¶ 7 , 419 P.3d 271, 277 . " Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29, ¶ 101 , 268 P.3d 86, 116 ); State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17, ¶ 7 , 387 P.3d 918, 921 . 3 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felo

2023City of Tulsa v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System , 1963 OK 267 387 P.2d 255 Nelson v. Nelson , 1998 OK 10 954 P.2d 1219 ¶30 When applying statutes, our goal is to give effect to legislative intent; if intent is plain from the text, there is nothing for us to do but implement it.

2023City of Tulsa v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension and Retirement System , 1963 OK 267 387 P.2d 255 Nelson v. Nelson , 1998 OK 10 954 P.2d 1219 ¶30 When applying statutes, our goal is to give effect to legislative intent; if intent is plain from the text, there is nothing for us to do but implement it.

2013In In re Amendments to Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases, 2005 OK 12 ¶ 6 , 116 P.3d 119, 147 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly adopted this uniform instruction.

2013In In re Amendments to Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions for Juvenile Cases, 2005 OK 12 ¶ 6 , 116 P.3d 119, 147 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly adopted this uniform instruction.

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

1960It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless “the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.” Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

1960It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless “the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.” Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .

2023Bench v. State , 2018 OK CR 31 431 P.3d 929 prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7 419 P.3d 271 Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29 268 P.3d 86 State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17 387 P.3d 918 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felony murder.

2023Bench v. State , 2018 OK CR 31 431 P.3d 929 prima facie evidence of the lesser offense to support giving a lesser included instruction." Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7 419 P.3d 271 Prima facie evidence of a lesser included offense is that evidence which would allow a jury rationally to find the accused guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater." Id. (quoting Davis v. State , 2011 OK CR 29 268 P.3d 86 State v. Tubby , 2016 OK CR 17 387 P.3d 918 ¶15 The instruction which Appellant now proposes should have been given is the uniform instruction on second degree felony murder.

2018See also Jackson v. State, 2016 OK CR 5 , ¶ 4, 371 P.3d 1120 , 1121 ; Levering v. State , 2013 OK CR 19 , ¶ 6, 315 P.3d 392 , 395. ¶ 5 In Counts I, II, and III the trial court gave the jury a modified version of the uniform instruction which incorrectly stated that the 85% Rule applied only to life sentences.

2018See also Jackson v. State, 2016 OK CR 5 , ¶ 4, 371 P.3d 1120 , 1121 ; Levering v. State , 2013 OK CR 19 , ¶ 6, 315 P.3d 392 , 395. ¶ 5 In Counts I, II, and III the trial court gave the jury a modified version of the uniform instruction which incorrectly stated that the 85% Rule applied only to life sentences.

2018Appellant has not cited to any authority where a uniform instruction on the Oklahoma Methamphetamine Registry Act has been created or required to be given to the jury. 2 ¶29 The State directs us to Reed v. State , 2016 OK CR 10 , 373 P.3d 118 and argues the reasoning used there to find a jury instruction on the Sex Offender Registration Act is not required is applicable to an instruction on the Oklahoma Methamphetamine Registry Act.

2018Appellant has not cited to any authority where a uniform instruction on the Oklahoma Methamphetamine Registry Act has been created or required to be given to the jury. 2 ¶29 The State directs us to Reed v. State , 2016 OK CR 10 , 373 P.3d 118 and argues the reasoning used there to find a jury instruction on the Sex Offender Registration Act is not required is applicable to an instruction on the Oklahoma Methamphetamine Registry Act.

2011We addressed similar concerns in Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 28 , 164 P.3d 1103 , and concluded that the definition in the current uniform instruction does not prohibit jurors from properly considering mitigating evidence.

2011We addressed similar concerns in Harris v. State, 2007 OK CR 28 , 164 P.3d 1103 , and concluded that the definition in the current uniform instruction does not prohibit jurors from properly considering mitigating evidence.

2006Relying upon Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), Myers argues the error constitutes a denial of due process and is reversible where there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner. ¶ 64 Defense counsel did not object to this uniform instruction at trial and our review is for plain error.

2006Relying upon Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990), Myers argues the error constitutes a denial of due process and is reversible where there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in an unconstitutional manner. ¶ 64 Defense counsel did not object to this uniform instruction at trial and our review is for plain error.

2006Rojem challenged the uniform instruction, the same one given in Jackson's case, on the basis that it failed to inform jurors "of the requirement of finding inordinate conscious physical suffering." Rojem argued that the former version of the uniform instruction was inadequate because of the new instruction adopted by the Court in DeRosa and references therein to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).

2006Rojem challenged the uniform instruction, the same one given in Jackson's case, on the basis that it failed to inform jurors "of the requirement of finding inordinate conscious physical suffering." Rojem argued that the former version of the uniform instruction was inadequate because of the new instruction adopted by the Court in DeRosa and references therein to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002).

2006He relies, in part, on this Court's decision in DeRosa v. State, 2004 OK CR 19, ¶ 96 , 89 P.3d 1124, 1156 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1063 , 125 S.Ct. 889 , 160 L.Ed.2d 793 (2005), in which we modified and replaced the instruction given in Jackson's case [OUJI-CR(2d) 4-73 (Supp.2005)] with an instruction explicitly requiring the jury to find conscious physical suffering in order to find "serious physical abuse" or torture through "great physical anguish." [13] Jackson's case was tried before DeRosa was handed down. ¶ 37 This Court recently published a case that forecloses Jackson's position.

2006He relies, in part, on this Court's decision in DeRosa v. State, 2004 OK CR 19, ¶ 96 , 89 P.3d 1124, 1156 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1063 , 125 S.Ct. 889 , 160 L.Ed.2d 793 (2005), in which we modified and replaced the instruction given in Jackson's case [OUJI-CR(2d) 4-73 (Supp.2005)] with an instruction explicitly requiring the jury to find conscious physical suffering in order to find "serious physical abuse" or torture through "great physical anguish." [13] Jackson's case was tried before DeRosa was handed down. ¶ 37 This Court recently published a case that forecloses Jackson's position.

1999The Willingham court noted the uniform instruction should be modified to reflect this holding and that the fifth element of the second degree depraved mind murder instruction should provide “the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual.” Id.

1999The Willingham court noted the uniform instruction should be modified to reflect this holding and that the fifth element of the second degree depraved mind murder instruction should provide "the conduct is not done with the intention of taking the life of any particular individual." Id.

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

1963It is the uniform rule that appellate courts will not interfere with the actions of the trial court unless ‘the bail demanded be per se unreasonably great and clearly disproportionate to the offense involved.’ Ex parte McClellan, 1 Okl.Cr. 299 , 97 P. 1019 ; Ex parte Houghton, 1 Okl.Cr. 302 , 97 P. 1021 ; Ex parte Ruble, 18 Okl.Cr. 134 , 193 P. 1009 .” This Court upon examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing feels that, because of the nature of the offenses charged and because it is evident that the district court and the examining magistrate both felt that the bond was in an a

2018Although we have held that the word "steal" ordinarily needs no explanation in jury instructions, we have specifically approved of the following definitional explanation of this term: "Where the word 'steal' is used it means to take and carry away the property of another with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to appropriate the same to one's own use." Darnell v. State , 1962 OK CR 23 , ¶ 17, 369 P.2d 470 , 473-74.

2018Although we have held that the word "steal" ordinarily needs no explanation in jury instructions, we have specifically approved of the following definitional explanation of this term: "Where the word 'steal' is used it means to take and carry away the property of another with the felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to appropriate the same to one's own use." Darnell v. State , 1962 OK CR 23 , ¶ 17, 369 P.2d 470 , 473-74.

2012The State disagrees and insists that the trial court was required to alter the instructions to conform to the evidence presented. 123 Our definition of wilful neglect of duty has varied depending on the statutes in question. 25 Nevertheless, we must look at a statute's underlying intent and purpose to define it. 26 For example, recently in Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21 , 184 P.3d 518 , we re-examined the meaning of "wilful" in the context of several acts.

2012The State disagrees and insists that the trial court was required to alter the instructions to conform to the evidence presented. 123 Our definition of wilful neglect of duty has varied depending on the statutes in question. 25 Nevertheless, we must look at a statute's underlying intent and purpose to define it. 26 For example, recently in Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21 , 184 P.3d 518 , we re-examined the meaning of "wilful" in the context of several acts.

2011Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 77 , 909 P.2d 806, 828-29 ; Instruction No. 9-45, OUJI-CR (2d).

2011Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 77 , 909 P.2d 806, 828-29 ; Instruction No. 9-45, OUJI-CR (2d).