camera hearing in Oklahoma

2024Croney, 1987 OK CR 274 ¶8 In Croney , the prosecution gave the defendant "no advance written notice" that the stale convictions "would be used for impeachment purposes." Id. 1987 OK CR 274 Id . 1987 OK CR 274 ¶9 The Court in Croney also rejected the State's argument that the in camera hearing on defendant's objection just before the proposed offer of impeachment evidence was all the notice required under section 2609(B).

2024Croney, 1987 OK CR 274 ¶8 In Croney , the prosecution gave the defendant "no advance written notice" that the stale convictions "would be used for impeachment purposes." Id. 1987 OK CR 274 Id . 1987 OK CR 274 ¶9 The Court in Croney also rejected the State's argument that the in camera hearing on defendant's objection just before the proposed offer of impeachment evidence was all the notice required under section 2609(B).

2007In doing so, we relied on precedent applying only to victim impact evidence, see Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 76 , 909 P.2d 806, 828 , and we did not, nor did we intend to, expand this requirement to all types of evidence.

2007In doing so, we relied on precedent applying only to victim impact evidence, see Cargle v. State, 1995 OK CR 77, ¶ 76 , 909 P.2d 806, 828 , and we did not, nor did we intend to, expand this requirement to all types of evidence.

2006Anything at all?" The record reflects no juror responded. [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of a confession. [8] In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 16 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1279 , we said that when the defendant attempts to elicit expert testimony on the issue whether he possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime in question, that testimony should be excluded.

2006Anything at all?" The record reflects no juror responded. [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of a confession. [8] In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 16 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1279 , we said that when the defendant attempts to elicit expert testimony on the issue whether he possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime in question, that testimony should be excluded.

1977In our view, competent original testimony of the identifier, AFTER, and only after, the in-court identification has been made in such fashion as to satisfy the requirements of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] and Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 287 , would include testimony to the effect that the identifier at a particular day, place, and time or times, had occasion to see, recognize and identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime.” We would further observe that we have carefully examined the evidence adduced at the in ca

1977In our view, competent original testimony of the identifier, AFTER, and only after, the in-court identification has been made in such fashion as to satisfy the requirements of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] and Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 287 , would include testimony to the effect that the identifier at a particular day, place, and time or times, had occasion to see, recognize and identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime.” We would further observe that we have carefully examined the evidence adduced at the in ca

1997This testimony was neither recognized by the trial court nor used for impeachment and is not before this Court. [18] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession. [19] McGregor v. State, 885 P.2d 1366 , 1377 n. 20 (Okl.Cr.1994); Lyons v. State 787 P.2d 460, 464 (Okl.Cr.1990). [20] State v. Young, 561 P.2d 993, 996 (Okl.Cr. 1977); U.S. v. Dewitt, 946 F.2d 1497, 1501 (10th Cir.1991); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). [21] U.S. v.

1995LaFevers v. State, 819 P.2d 1362 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Cannon v. State, 827 P.2d 1339 (Okl.Cr. 1992). [3] McGregor v. State, 885 P.2d 1366 , 1377 n. 20 (Okl.Cr. 1994); Turner v. State, 803 P.2d 1152, 1158 (Okl.Cr. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1233 , 111 S.Ct. 2859 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1991). [4] Jackson v. Demno, 378 U.S. 368, 393 , 84 S.Ct. 1774, 1790 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) (established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of his confession). [5] LaFevers asserted at trial that in an inaudible statement just after this comment he again said that he wanted a lawyer.

1983Parker v. State, 570 P.2d 342 (Okl.Cr.1977).

1983Parker v. State, 570 P.2d 342 (Okl.Cr. 1977).

1977In our view, competent original testimony of the identifier, AFTER, and only after, the in-court identification has been made in such fashion as to satisfy the requirements of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] and Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 287 , would include testimony to the effect that the identifier at a particular day, place, and time or times, had occasion to see, recognize and identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime.” We would further observe that we have carefully examined the evidence adduced at the in ca

1977In our view, competent original testimony of the identifier, AFTER, and only after, the in-court identification has been made in such fashion as to satisfy the requirements of Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967)] and Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 438 P.2d 287 , would include testimony to the effect that the identifier at a particular day, place, and time or times, had occasion to see, recognize and identify the defendant as the person who committed the crime.” We would further observe that we have carefully examined the evidence adduced at the in ca

2024Such evidence should not be admitted where it is a subterfuge for showing to the jury that the defendant is a person who deserves to be punished. (5) The evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, but the proof must be clear and convincing. (6) At the time the evidence is received, and in the final instructions to the jury, the trial court shall admonish the jury that the defendant cannot be convicted for any crime other than the one with which he is charged and that the evidence of the other offense or offenses is admitted solely

2018Huckaby v. State , 1990 OK CR 84 , ¶ 13, 804 P.2d 447 , 451.

2018Huckaby v. State , 1990 OK CR 84 , ¶ 13, 804 P.2d 447 , 451.

2012Young v. State, 2008 OK CR 25, ¶ 19 , 191 P.3d 601, 607 . 115 In the present case, the district court heard evidence regarding the voluntariness of Appellant's statement at an in camera hearing pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), and ruled the statement was admissible.

2012Young v. State, 2008 OK CR 25, ¶ 19 , 191 P.3d 601, 607 . 115 In the present case, the district court heard evidence regarding the voluntariness of Appellant's statement at an in camera hearing pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), and ruled the statement was admissible.

2007In any event, even if Smith was still under some lingering effects of PCP at the time of his videotaped interview, "[slelfinduced intoxication, short of mania, or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded to it." gCoddington, 2006 OK CR 34 , %38, 142 P.3d at 448 (quoting Moles v. State, 1974 OK CR 57, ¶ 6 , 520 P.2d 822, 824 ). 13 . 22 0.$.2001, § 894 states: "After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement betwee

2007In any event, even if Smith was still under some lingering effects of PCP at the time of his videotaped interview, "[slelfinduced intoxication, short of mania, or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded to it." gCoddington, 2006 OK CR 34 , %38, 142 P.3d at 448 (quoting Moles v. State, 1974 OK CR 57, ¶ 6 , 520 P.2d 822, 824 ). 13 . 22 0.$.2001, § 894 states: "After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement betwee

2007In any event, even if Smith was still under some lingering effects of PCP at the time of his videotaped interview, "[slelfinduced intoxication, short of mania, or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded to it." gCoddington, 2006 OK CR 34 , %38, 142 P.3d at 448 (quoting Moles v. State, 1974 OK CR 57, ¶ 6 , 520 P.2d 822, 824 ). 13 . 22 0.$.2001, § 894 states: "After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement betwee

2007In any event, even if Smith was still under some lingering effects of PCP at the time of his videotaped interview, "[slelfinduced intoxication, short of mania, or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a confession inadmissible, but goes only to the weight to be accorded to it." gCoddington, 2006 OK CR 34 , %38, 142 P.3d at 448 (quoting Moles v. State, 1974 OK CR 57, ¶ 6 , 520 P.2d 822, 824 ). 13 . 22 0.$.2001, § 894 states: "After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement betwee

2007In support of his claim Appellant cites to Wackerly v. State, 2000 OK CR 15, ¶ 59 , 12 P.3d 1, 18 , where this Court held that the trial court erred in failing to hold an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of victim impact evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding.

2007In support of his claim Appellant cites to Wackerly v. State, 2000 OK CR 15, ¶ 59 , 12 P.3d 1, 18 , where this Court held that the trial court erred in failing to hold an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of victim impact evidence in a capital sentencing proceeding.

2006Anything at all?" The record reflects no juror responded. [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of a confession. [8] In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 16 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1279 , we said that when the defendant attempts to elicit expert testimony on the issue whether he possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime in question, that testimony should be excluded.

2006Anything at all?" The record reflects no juror responded. [6] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [7] Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964) established a defendant's right to an in camera hearing on the voluntariness of a confession. [8] In Hooks v. State, 1993 OK CR 41, ¶ 16 , 862 P.2d 1273, 1279 , we said that when the defendant attempts to elicit expert testimony on the issue whether he possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime in question, that testimony should be excluded.

2006In White v. State, 1998 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 14-15 , 973 P.2d 306, 311 , where the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony on whether his intoxication affected his mental state and prevented him from forming malice aforethought, we stated such evidence "was not prohibited by Hooks " even though it would have embraced an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [9] We also find trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Hale's unsolicited statements.

2006In White v. State, 1998 OK CR 69, ¶¶ 14-15 , 973 P.2d 306, 311 , where the defendant sought to introduce expert testimony on whether his intoxication affected his mental state and prevented him from forming malice aforethought, we stated such evidence "was not prohibited by Hooks " even though it would have embraced an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. [9] We also find trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Hale's unsolicited statements.

2004The hearing was consistent with our holding in Lewis v. State, 1998 OK CR 24, ¶ 21 , 970 P.2d 1158, 1167 , that the trial court should determine the admissibility of expert testimony before it is presented to the jury.

2004The hearing was consistent with our holding in Lewis v. State, 1998 OK CR 24, ¶ 21 , 970 P.2d 1158, 1167 , that the trial court should determine the admissibility of expert testimony before it is presented to the jury.

2004Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, ¶ 9 , 13 P.3d 489, 493 . ¶ 30 Before Dr. Call testified, the trial court held an in camera hearing on the techniques he used and the reasonableness of his reliance on certain information to reach his conclusions.

2004Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, ¶ 9 , 13 P.3d 489, 493 . ¶ 30 Before Dr. Call testified, the trial court held an in camera hearing on the techniques he used and the reasonableness of his reliance on certain information to reach his conclusions.

2004The defense was given the weekend and Monday to prepare for Meers' testimony. [11] The names of the guards could not be ascertained due to the record keeping used at that time. [12] Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-207 (4) provides in relevant part: In cases of remand for new sentencing proceedings, all exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing proceedings shall be admissible in the new sentencing proceedings.... [13] 470 U.S. 298, 316-17 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1297 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (noting Harrison applies where the prosecution vi

2004The defense was given the weekend and Monday to prepare for Meers' testimony. [11] The names of the guards could not be ascertained due to the record keeping used at that time. [12] Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-207 (4) provides in relevant part: In cases of remand for new sentencing proceedings, all exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing proceedings shall be admissible in the new sentencing proceedings.... [13] 470 U.S. 298, 316-17 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1297 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (noting Harrison applies where the prosecution vi

2004The defense was given the weekend and Monday to prepare for Meers' testimony. [11] The names of the guards could not be ascertained due to the record keeping used at that time. [12] Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-207 (4) provides in relevant part: In cases of remand for new sentencing proceedings, all exhibits and a transcript of all testimony and other evidence properly admitted in the prior trial and sentencing proceedings shall be admissible in the new sentencing proceedings.... [13] 470 U.S. 298, 316-17 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1297 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (noting Harrison applies where the prosecution vi

1998Ultimately, the trial court admitted the evidence over defense objection. ¶ 30 The admission of scientific evidence in Oklahoma at the time of Young’s trial was governed by the test articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

1998Ultimately, the trial court admitted the evidence over defense objection. ¶ 30 The admission of scientific evidence in Oklahoma at the time of Young’s trial was governed by the test articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).