recognized exceptions rule in Oklahoma

1982City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Owens, supra. The recognized exceptions to this rule are when an opponent has acted in bad faith, vexatious *600 ly, wantonly, or for oppressive reason, or where a successful litigant has conferred a substantial benefit upon a class of persons.

1982City National Bank & Trust Co. v. Owens, supra. These exceptions do not apply in this case, and therefore we deny Appellee’s request for an attorney’s fee for the successful defense of this suit in the trial court and on appeal.

1971In that respect, we note what this Court said in Cook v. State, 27 Okl.Cr. 215 , 226 P. 595 (1924): “One of the recognized exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible is where spontaneous statements or exclamations are made by an injured person, declaring the circumstances of the injury, where such statements are made immediately after the injury or during such indefinite time thereafter as the stress of pain, fear, or excitement prevents the reflective faculties of the narrator to control, so that the utterances are spontaneous and in direct response to the sensations produ

1971The Supreme Court of Iowa stated with reference to declarations of the victim, after the commission of the crime in State v. McClain, 256 Iowa 175 , 125 N.W.2d 764 , 4 A.L.R.3rd 134 (1964): “Declarations and exclamations of the person injured are admissible in evidence where they are so connected with the crime as to constitute a part of the res gestae, and this is true whether they incriminate the accused or whether they exculpate him.

1971The Supreme Court of Iowa stated with reference to declarations of the victim, after the commission of the crime in State v. McClain, 256 Iowa 175 , 125 N.W.2d 764 , 4 A.L.R.3rd 134 (1964): “Declarations and exclamations of the person injured are admissible in evidence where they are so connected with the crime as to constitute a part of the res gestae, and this is true whether they incriminate the accused or whether they exculpate him.

1971In that respect, we note what this Court said in Cook v. State, 27 Okl.Cr. 215 , 226 P. 595 (1924): “One of the recognized exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible is where spontaneous statements or exclamations are made by an injured person, declaring the circumstances of the injury, where such statements are made immediately after the injury or during such indefinite time thereafter as the stress of pain, fear, or excitement prevents the reflective faculties of the narrator to control, so that the utterances are spontaneous and in direct response to the sensations produ

1971In that respect, we note what this Court said in Cook v. State, 27 Okl.Cr. 215 , 226 P. 595 (1924): “One of the recognized exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible is where spontaneous statements or exclamations are made by an injured person, declaring the circumstances of the injury, where such statements are made immediately after the injury or during such indefinite time thereafter as the stress of pain, fear, or excitement prevents the reflective faculties of the narrator to control, so that the utterances are spontaneous and in direct response to the sensations produ

1971In that respect, we note what this Court said in Cook v. State, 27 Okl.Cr. 215 , 226 P. 595 (1924): “One of the recognized exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible is where spontaneous statements or exclamations are made by an injured person, declaring the circumstances of the injury, where such statements are made immediately after the injury or during such indefinite time thereafter as the stress of pain, fear, or excitement prevents the reflective faculties of the narrator to control, so that the utterances are spontaneous and in direct response to the sensations produ

1967These exceptions are set forth in Morrison v. State, Okl.Cr., 407 P.2d 998 , in the following language: “Evidence of other crimes in order to be admissible must come within one of the well-recognized exceptions to the rule.

1951The utterances, to come within the exceptions to the rule, must be under the uncontrolled domination of the senses, so near in point of time that considerations of self-interest and reflection could not have been fully restored.’ “In this case the witness fixes the times the deceased arrived at his house, and it would seem from the distance the deceased traveled to reach the home of the witness Gillispie, would not require more than thirty or forty minutes, and the declaration as to what occurred at the time, under the circumstances, we believe effectually excludes the presumption that they we

1944The utterances to come within the exceptions to the rule, must be under the uncontrolled domination of the senses, so near in point of time that considerations of self-interest and reflection could not have been fully restored.” See, also, Dodd v. State, 29 Okla.

1919In the case of Southwestern Surety Insurance Company v. Dietrich, 68 Okla. 114 , 172 P. 51 , Mr. Justice Hardy, who delivered the opinion of the court, says: "Under some previous holdings of this court a case-made thus settled and signed is a nullity, and presents nothing to the Supreme Court for review, but we think this holding should be modified to the extent of saying that such a case-made is irregular, but not void.

1919In the case of Southwestern Surety Insurance Company v. Dietrich, 68 Okla. 114 , 172 P. 51 , Mr. Justice Hardy, who delivered the opinion of the court, says: "Under some previous holdings of this court a case-made thus settled and signed is a nullity, and presents nothing to the Supreme Court for review, but we think this holding should be modified to the extent of saying that such a case-made is irregular, but not void.

1916The conclusion we have, reached is not in conflict with the decision of Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okla. 519 , 153 Pac. 1169 , since, in that case, .it appeared from the certificate of the judge that the case-made was submitted to him “by the parties to said cause,” thus showing that there was an appearance by both parties at the settlement, which brought that case within the first exception to the rule.

1916The conclusion we have, reached is not in conflict with the decision of Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes, 54 Okla. 519 , 153 Pac. 1169 , since, in that case, .it appeared from the certificate of the judge that the case-made was submitted to him “by the parties to said cause,” thus showing that there was an appearance by both parties at the settlement, which brought that case within the first exception to the rule.