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 1 courts 1957–2025 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. Neasbittgreen2 sentences2025State v. Neasbitt , 1987 OK CR 55 735 P.2d 337 Harris v. State , 1989 OK CR 15 773 P.2d 1273 [Section] 756, which allows admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test, meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. 2025State v. Neasbitt , 1987 OK CR 55 735 P.2d 337 Harris v. State , 1989 OK CR 15 773 P.2d 1273 [Section] 756, which allows admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test, meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. | 1 | 2 |
McCullick v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Thus, Engler laid the predicate, later reiterated in McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235 (Okl.Cr.1984), that the admissibility of a refusal to submit to a sobriety test must be resolved by the legislative branch. 1989Thus, Engler laid the predicate, later reiterated in McCullick v. State, 682 P.2d 235 (Okl.Cr. 1984), that the admissibility of a refusal to submit to a sobriety test must be resolved by the legislative branch. | 1 | 2 |
Morris v. Stategreen1 sentence1976See Morris v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 1108, 1972 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2025State v. Neasbitt , 1987 OK CR 55 735 P.2d 337 Harris v. State , 1989 OK CR 15 773 P.2d 1273 [Section] 756, which allows admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test, meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. 2025State v. Neasbitt , 1987 OK CR 55 735 P.2d 337 Harris v. State , 1989 OK CR 15 773 P.2d 1273 [Section] 756, which allows admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test, meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bailey v. City of Tulsa
green
2 sentences1989The Court determined that admission of evidence of one’s refusal to take a sobriety test “meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and the United States Constitutions.” Id. at 338 . 1989The Court determined that admission of evidence of one's refusal to take a sobriety test "meets constitutional muster according to both the Oklahoma and the United States Constitutions." Id. at 338 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
South Dakota v. Neville
green
2 sentences1987This Court looked to the case of South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), in considering the admissibility of evidence that a driver had refused a sobriety test. 1987This Court looked to the case of South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 , 103 S.Ct. 916 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983), in considering the admissibility of evidence that a driver had refused a sobriety test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sartin v. State
green
1 sentence1987Sartin, supra. It is a lawful penalty to use evidence that a driver refused such a sobriety test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Thomason
green
1 sentence1987Oklahoma’s constitutional provision does not grant any broader protections than the Fifth Amendment does, Thomason, supra, and we hold it is not offended by allowing use of evidence that a driver refused to take a sobriety test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Carson
neutral
1 sentence1983Moore v. State, supra; State v. Carson, 512 P.2d 825 (Okl.Cr.1973). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence1983Moore v. State, supra; State v. Carson, 512 P.2d 825 (Okl.Cr.1973). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Martin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1973Martin v. State, Okl.Cr., 487 P.2d 1179 , and Engler v. State, Okl. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence1971Jackson v. State, Okl.Cr., 397 P.2d 920 (1964). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Spencer v. State
green
1 sentence1966BUSSEY, Presiding Judge (specially concurring): I agree with my colleagues that the case must be reversed and remanded, for it does not affirmatively appear that the sobriety tests were freely and voluntarily participated in by the defendant; however, I believe the rule relating to the admissibility of motion pictures taken of a sobriety test should be that which I heretofore have stated in Spencer v. State, supra, that: "* * * in order to render motion pictures of the `Alcoholic Influence Test' admissible, it need only be shown that the tests were performed voluntarily by the accused. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Duckworth v. State
green
1 sentence1957By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that such proof requires an accused to testify against himself, any more than evidence by others of any other actions and conduct of an accused in connection with an offense with which he may stand charged. *628 I think the case of Duckworth v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1103 , cited as authority for the present holding is basically unsound, and not supported by logic or reason. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.