offense violation (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

offense violation in Oklahoma

8 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2019 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1931 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Id . 1999 OK CR 48, ¶ 4, 993 P.2d at 125; Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

2019Id . 1999 OK CR 48, ¶ 4, 993 P.2d at 125; Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

12
Davis v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1999 · cited in 2 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019Id . 1999 OK CR 48, ¶ 4, 993 P.2d at 125; Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

2019Id . 1999 OK CR 48, ¶ 4, 993 P.2d at 125; Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

12
Howard v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
1 sentence

1978The rule is well-settled that only when the State’s case is entirely circumstantial is an instruction on circumstantial evidence mandatory, and, as we held in Howard v. State, Okl.Cr., 561 P.2d 125, 134 (1977), where there is sufficient direct evidence of each element of the offense it is not error for the trial court to refuse the defendant’s requested instruction on circumstantial evidence.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Richardson v. State green
ind · 1999
1 sentence

2017Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution prohibits double jeopardy, providing that “[n]o person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained: In Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999)[,] this Court concluded that two or more offenses are the same offense in violation of article 1, section 14 if, with respect to either .the statutory elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to obtain convictions, the essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged of

12017–2017
Miller v. State neutral
oklacrimapp · 1973
1 sentence

1974In regard to appellant’s first two contentions, we note the case of Miller v. State, Okl.Cr., 508 P.2d 656 (1973), wherein this Court, with identical issues before it, laid these two questions to rest, contrary to appellant’s arguments.

11974–1974
In Re Simmons neutral
· 1911
1 sentence

1938In re Simmons, 4 Okla.

11938–1938
Rambo v. State neutral
oklacrimapp · 1927
1 sentence

1927Rambo v. State, 38 Okla.

11927–1927
Evans v. Willis, County Judge green
· 1908
2 sentences

1911Counsel in their brief say: *437 “Wfe urge that the petitioner was entitled to a trial by jury in the municipal court of the city of Tulsa, and that the court is in error in holding that the right of appeal to a court in which a jury trial may be had meets the constitutional guaranty of a trial by jury.” In support of this position, they cite Evans v. Willis, 22 Okla. 310 , 97 Pac. 1047 , 19 L.

1911Counsel in their brief say: *437 “Wfe urge that the petitioner was entitled to a trial by jury in the municipal court of the city of Tulsa, and that the court is in error in holding that the right of appeal to a court in which a jury trial may be had meets the constitutional guaranty of a trial by jury.” In support of this position, they cite Evans v. Willis, 22 Okla. 310 , 97 Pac. 1047 , 19 L.

11911–1911

Where else courts name it

TX 265 (1896–2026) CA 126 (1894–2025) IL 121 (1947–2025) OH 120 (1966–2026) IN 106 (1931–2020) MO 88 (1902–2024) FL 56 (1931–2025) KS 53 (1909–2026) WA 49 (1971–2026) TN 47 (1916–2026) VA 42 (1922–2025) MI 35 (1971–2026) OR 31 (1964–2026) PA 30 (1924–2025) NY 29 (1952–2024) GA 26 (1901–2025) NC 25 (1973–2024) NJ 23 (1949–2024) AZ 22 (1923–2025) AL 21 (1915–2025) LA 20 (1951–2023) CO 18 (1982–2026) NM 18 (1975–2025) MN 17 (1945–2016) CT 16 (1957–2020) MA 16 (1977–2023) HI 15 (1952–2013) DC 14 (1979–2024) AR 14 (1877–2021) ID 13 (1952–2026) MD 12 (1977–2022) WI 11 (1908–2025) ND 9 (1912–2023) WV 9 (1961–2023) VT 8 (1994–2018) NE 8 (1977–2025) OK 8 (1911–2019) IA 8 (1871–2018) MT 8 (1951–2025) KY 7 (1917–2016) WY 7 (1977–2000) NH 6 (1971–2017) AK 6 (1982–1996) MS 5 (2001–2025) UT 5 (1993–2015) NV 4 (1994–2011) RI 4 (1970–2017) VI 3 (2012–2014) SD 3 (1987–2018) ME 2 (1998–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check