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.
8 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spuehler v. Stategreen2 sentences1988The Spuehler test requires this Court to determine "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational *363 trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 203 . 1988The Spuehler test requires this Court to determine "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational *363 trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 203 . | 2 | 5 |
Easlick v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Because the prosecution used only circumstantial evidence to prove he killed with malice aforethought, Hogan claims this Court should use the "reasonable hypothesis" standard. [2] While Hogan acknowledges this Court's holding in Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556 , 559 rejecting the reasonable hypothesis test, he claims it remains the proper standard in cases where the evidence of intent was proved by circumstantial evidence only. ¶ 21 In Easlick we abandoned the "reasonable hypothesis" test and stated we would review all future sufficiency claims under the Spuehler standard, 2006Because the prosecution used only circumstantial evidence to prove he killed with malice aforethought, Hogan claims this Court should use the "reasonable hypothesis" standard. [2] While Hogan acknowledges this Court's holding in Easlick v. State, 2004 OK CR 21, ¶ 15 , 90 P.3d 556 , 559 rejecting the reasonable hypothesis test, he claims it remains the proper standard in cases where the evidence of intent was proved by circumstantial evidence only. ¶ 21 In Easlick we abandoned the "reasonable hypothesis" test and stated we would review all future sufficiency claims under the Spuehler standard, | 1 | 2 |
Jackson v. Virginiared2 sentences2006See Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202 , 203-04 quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2006See Spuehler v. State, 1985 OK CR 132 , ¶ 7, 709 P.2d 202 , 203-04 quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2787 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. 2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gregg v. State
green
2 sentences2004Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82 , 844 P.2d 867, 876-77 ; Bowie v. State, 1991 OK CR 78 , 816 P.2d 1143, 1147 . ¶ 17 In proposition three we find that the sentence does not shock the conscience of *560 this court, and there is no evidence that the trial court abused its authority in determining punishment. 2004Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82 , 844 P.2d 867, 876-77 ; Bowie v. State, 1991 OK CR 78 , 816 P.2d 1143, 1147 . ¶ 17 In proposition three we find that the sentence does not shock the conscience of *560 this court, and there is no evidence that the trial court abused its authority in determining punishment. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bowie v. State
green
2 sentences2004Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82 , 844 P.2d 867, 876-77 ; Bowie v. State, 1991 OK CR 78 , 816 P.2d 1143, 1147 . ¶ 17 In proposition three we find that the sentence does not shock the conscience of *560 this court, and there is no evidence that the trial court abused its authority in determining punishment. 2004Gregg v. State, 1992 OK CR 82 , 844 P.2d 867, 876-77 ; Bowie v. State, 1991 OK CR 78 , 816 P.2d 1143, 1147 . ¶ 17 In proposition three we find that the sentence does not shock the conscience of *560 this court, and there is no evidence that the trial court abused its authority in determining punishment. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Martinez-Salazar
green
2 sentences2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. 2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hopper v. State
green
2 sentences2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. 2000United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 , 120 S.Ct. 774, 780-81 , 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000). [3] But cf., Taylor v. State, 1982 OK CR 8, ¶ 8 , 640 P.2d 554, 557 (there are five exceptions to the rule of Section 2404(B)); and more recently, Hopper v. State, 1987 OK CR 78, ¶ 10 , 736 P.2d 538, 540-41 . [4] This case involves both direct and circumstantial evidence of guilt and the Spuehler test, supra, applies. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mitchell v. State
green
2 sentences2000Even if the case were based solely upon circumstantial evidence we should apply Spuehler and not the "reasonable hypothesis" test of Mitchell v. State, 1994 OK CR 70 , ¶ 33, 884 P.2d 1186, 1199 . 2000Even if the case were based solely upon circumstantial evidence we should apply Spuehler and not the "reasonable hypothesis" test of Mitchell v. State, 1994 OK CR 70 , ¶ 33, 884 P.2d 1186, 1199 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences1988Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985); Roberts v. State, 715 P.2d 483 (Okl.Cr.1986). 1988Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202 (Okl.Cr.1985); Roberts v. State, 715 P.2d 483 (Okl.Cr.1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.