clear and affirmative instruction in Oklahoma

9 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1917–1987 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Woods v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1971 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1974–1987 2 sentences 1987It is established in this State that “a defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case.” Woods v. State, 485 P.2d 486, 488 (Okl.Cr.1971). 1987PARKS, Judge, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent to the majority's resolution of the appellant's second assignment of error, asserting that the trial court erred in denying appellant's request for a jury instruction on self-defense. *551 It is established in this State that "a defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case." Woods v. State, 485 P.2d 486, 488 (Okl.Cr. 1971).	2	2
Fleming v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1965 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1971–1987 2 sentences 1987See also Fleming v. State, 401 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr.1965). ’“However, this proposition is valid only when such defense finds support in the evidence.” Cantrell v. State, 561 P.2d 973, 976-77 (Okl.Cr.1977). 1987See also Fleming v. State, 401 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr. 1965). '"However, this proposition is valid only when such defense finds support in the evidence." Cantrell v. State, 561 P.2d 973, 976-77 (Okl.Cr. 1977).	1	2
Cantrell v. Stategreen oklacrimapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987See also Fleming v. State, 401 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr.1965). ’“However, this proposition is valid only when such defense finds support in the evidence.” Cantrell v. State, 561 P.2d 973, 976-77 (Okl.Cr.1977). 1987See also Fleming v. State, 401 P.2d 997 (Okl.Cr. 1965). '"However, this proposition is valid only when such defense finds support in the evidence." Cantrell v. State, 561 P.2d 973, 976-77 (Okl.Cr. 1977).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Shears v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1921 2 sentences 1937Shears v. State, 20 Okla. 1932Shears v. State, 20 Okla.	2	1932–1937
Nelson v. State green oklacrimapp · 1955 2 sentences 1965In Holt v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 855 , this Court said: "Defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given 1001 to jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case." In Nelson v. State, Okl.Cr., 288 P.2d 429 , at page 439, this Court further stated this principle of law: "It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury from both the standpoint of the state and the defendant; and the defendant had right to have a clear affirmative charge based upon the hypothesis that his testimony and th 1965*In Holt v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 855 , this Court said: “Defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case.” In Nelson v. State, Okl.Cr., 288 P.2d 429 , at page 439, this Court further stated this principle of law: “It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury from both the standpoint of the state and the defendant; and the defendant had right to have a clear affirmative charge based upon the hypothesis that his testimony and the test	1	1965–1965
Holt v. State green oklacrimapp · 1955 2 sentences 1965In Holt v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 855 , this Court said: "Defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given 1001 to jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case." In Nelson v. State, Okl.Cr., 288 P.2d 429 , at page 439, this Court further stated this principle of law: "It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury from both the standpoint of the state and the defendant; and the defendant had right to have a clear affirmative charge based upon the hypothesis that his testimony and th 1965*In Holt v. State, Okl.Cr., 278 P.2d 855 , this Court said: “Defendant has the right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to jury, applicable to his defense, based upon hypothesis that it is true, when such evidence affects a material issue in the case.” In Nelson v. State, Okl.Cr., 288 P.2d 429 , at page 439, this Court further stated this principle of law: “It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury from both the standpoint of the state and the defendant; and the defendant had right to have a clear affirmative charge based upon the hypothesis that his testimony and the test	1	1965–1965
Bradley v. State green oklacrimapp · 1937 2 sentences 1955And in paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Bradley v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 203 , 74 P.2d 126 , we said: “The defendant has a right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury, applicable to his testimony, based on the hypothesis that it is true, when such testimony affects a material issue in the case.” This question has been tested many times by this court. 1955And in paragraph 3 of the syllabus in Bradley v. State, 63 Okl.Cr. 203 , 74 P.2d 126 , we said: “The defendant has a right to have a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury, applicable to his testimony, based on the hypothesis that it is true, when such testimony affects a material issue in the case.” This question has been tested many times by this court.	1	1955–1955
Skelley v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1938 2 sentences 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 . 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 .	1	1955–1955
Heath v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1930 2 sentences 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 . 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 .	1	1955–1955
France v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1952 2 sentences 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 . 1955We cite just a few: Heath v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 250 , 293 P. 1111 ; Skelley v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 112 , 77 P.2d 1162 ; France v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 244 , 244 P.2d 341 .	1	1955–1955
Brown v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1913 1 sentence 1920“It is error for the trial court to single out a defendant and charge upon the weight of his testimony.” Brown v. State, 9 Okla.	1	1920–1920
Payton v. State green oklacrimapp · 1910 2 sentences 1917“The defendant * * - * has a right to have .a clear and affirmative instruction given to the jury applicable to his .testimony, based upon the hypothesis that it is true, and when such testimony affects a material issue in the case.” (Payton v. State, 4 Okla. 1917Cr. 316 , 111 Pac. 666 ; McIntosh v. State, 8 Okla.	1	1917–1917
McIntosh v. State neutral oklacrimapp · 1912 1 sentence 1917Cr. 316 , 111 Pac. 666 ; McIntosh v. State, 8 Okla.	1	1917–1917

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check