Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Herrmangreen2 sentences2006State v. Herrman, 316 Mont. 198 , 70 P.3d 738, 742 (2003). 2006State v. Herrman, 316 Mont. 198 , 70 P.3d 738, 742 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
VANCE v. STATE
green
2 sentences2022VANCE v. STATE 2022 OK CR 25 Case Number: F-2021-391 Decided: 10/06/2022 MALIK OMAR VANCE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee Cite as: 2022 OK CR 25 , __ __ OPINION MUSSEMAN, JUDGE: ¶1 Appellant, Malik Omar Vance, was tried by a jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-3829, and convicted of Rape in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1114 I. whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce evidence of other bad acts pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2404 12 O.S. § 2413 II. whether several instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appel 2022VANCE v. STATE 2022 OK CR 25 Case Number: F-2021-391 Decided: 10/06/2022 MALIK OMAR VANCE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellee Cite as: 2022 OK CR 25 , __ __ OPINION MUSSEMAN, JUDGE: ¶1 Appellant, Malik Omar Vance, was tried by a jury in the District Court of Tulsa County, Case No. CF-2018-3829, and convicted of Rape in the First Degree in violation of 21 O.S.Supp.2011, § 1114 I. whether the trial court erred in permitting the state to introduce evidence of other bad acts pursuant to 12 O.S. § 2404 12 O.S. § 2413 II. whether several instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived Appel | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Warner v. State
green
2 sentences2009Warner, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 167 , 144 P.3d at 887 . 2009Warner, 2006 OK CR 40, ¶ 167 , 144 P.3d at 887 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Phillips v. State
green
2 sentences2006Phillips, 1999 OK CR 38, ¶ 55 , 989 P.2d at 1033 . ¶ 32 Here the record does not show the shock sleeve was visible to the jury. 2006Phillips, 1999 OK CR 38, ¶ 55 , 989 P.2d at 1033 . ¶ 32 Here the record does not show the shock sleeve was visible to the jury. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004He claims the evidence violated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, ¶ 15-17 , 889 P.2d 319, 328-30 . 2004He claims the evidence violated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, ¶ 15-17 , 889 P.2d 319, 328-30 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences2004He claims the evidence violated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, ¶ 15-17 , 889 P.2d 319, 328-30 . 2004He claims the evidence violated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) and Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10, ¶ 15-17 , 889 P.2d 319, 328-30 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Manning v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety
green
2 sentences1997The Court of Criminal Appeals held in Edwards that destruction of a breath ampoule which was neither deliberate nor malicious did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause.... ” Manning was not approved for publication by this Court; and it has no precedential value pursuant to 20 O.S.1991 § 30.5. 14 Although, we agree that the facts of Manning are strikingly similar to the present cause, the authority it relied on is not supportive and we do not agree with its holding. 15 Consequently, we expressly overrule Manning v. State ex rel DPS, 887 P.2d 1377 (Okl 1997The Court of Criminal Appeals held in Edwards that destruction of a breath ampoule which was neither deliberate nor malicious did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial in violation of the Due Process Clause...." Manning was not approved for publication by this Court; and it has no precedential value pursuant to 20 O.S.1991 § 30.5. [14] Although, we agree that the facts of Manning are strikingly similar to the present cause, the authority it relied on is not supportive and we do not agree with its holding. [15] Consequently, we expressly overrule Manning v. State ex rel DPS, 887 P.2d 1377 ( | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Edwards v. State
green
1 sentence1994Edwards v. State, 544 P.2d at 64 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Buchanan v. State
green
1 sentence1977To support his contention that the defendant was denied a fair trial defense counsel cites Buchanan v. State, Okl.Cr., 523 P.2d 1134 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Coursolle
green
2 sentences1975In support of this contention the defendant relies on a Minnesota case, State v. Coursolle, 255 Minn. 384 , 97 N.W.2d 472 (1959) which deals with witnesses for the accused brought from penal institutions and left manacled in the presence of the jury. 1975In support of this contention the defendant relies on a Minnesota case, State v. Coursolle, 255 Minn. 384 , 97 N.W.2d 472 (1959) which deals with witnesses for the accused brought from penal institutions and left manacled in the presence of the jury. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
French v. State
green
1 sentence1975The defendant argues that this was prejudicial to his right to a fair trial and a violation of 22 O.S.1971 § 15 : “No person can be compelled in a criminal action to be a witness against himself; nor can a person charged with a public offense be subjected before conviction to any more restraint than is necessary for his detention to answer the charge, and in no event shall be tried before a jury while in chains or shackles.” This court concluded in French v. State, Okl.Cr., 377 P.2d 501 (1965) that this statute was intended to protect two inherent rights of the accused: “First, one charged wit | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.