8 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1926–1982 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Starks v. Stategreen1 sentence1975See also Starks v. State, Okl.Cr., 510 P.2d 1389 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1982State v. Robinson, 544 P.2d 545 (Okl.Cr.1975). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bingham v. State
green
2 sentences1974In Bingham v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 5 , 165 P.2d 646 (1946), this Court said in the syllabus: “Where counsel for defendant interposes defense of insanity at.time of commission of crime, which issue is properly submitted to the jury, trial court did not have duty to submit to a separate jury the question as to defendant’s present sanity, in the absence of any request made on behalf of the accused for such a hearing and in the absence of substantial testimony or other evidence which was sufficient to raise a doubt in the Court’s mind as to present sanity of accused.” (paragraph 13) In the instant ca 1974In Bingham v. State, 82 Okl.Cr. 5 , 165 P.2d 646 (1946), this Court said in the syllabus: “Where counsel for defendant interposes defense of insanity at.time of commission of crime, which issue is properly submitted to the jury, trial court did not have duty to submit to a separate jury the question as to defendant’s present sanity, in the absence of any request made on behalf of the accused for such a hearing and in the absence of substantial testimony or other evidence which was sufficient to raise a doubt in the Court’s mind as to present sanity of accused.” (paragraph 13) In the instant ca | 1 | 1974–1974 |
In Re Booth
neutral
2 sentences1966This court has been consistent in adhering to the rule laid down in the case *204 of In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 , where the court said: “The Criminal Court of Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal. 1966This court has been consistent in adhering to the rule laid down in the case *204 of In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406 , 126 P.2d 751 , where the court said: “The Criminal Court of Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and questions raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Kizer v. State
green
1 sentence1951Kizer v. State, 67 Okla. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Cooley v. State
neutral
1 sentence1939Cooley v. State, 34 Okla. | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Ex Parte Mosgrove
neutral
1 sentence1931Ex parte Bochmann, supra; Ex parte Mosgrove, 47 Okla. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Starr v. State
green
1 sentence1926Cr. 440 , 115 P. 356 , considered, at length, the authorities upon the matter of view by the jury, and, while the question of a statement made by any outside person was not in that case, held in effect that the statute is not repugnant to the Bill of Rights conferring upon an accused the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, but that it gives an accused the privilege of waiving such constitutional right. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.