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.
7 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ("failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review. ..."). 1107 Misinstruction of the jury is subject to harmless error review. 2007Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ("failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review. ..."). 1107 Misinstruction of the jury is subject to harmless error review. | 1 | 6 |
United States v. John P. Skandiergreen2 sentences2004See United States v. Skandier, 758 F.2d 43, 44-45 (1st Cir.1985)(addressing how such questioning can result in burden shifting and comment improperly on the right to remain silent). ¶ 9 In this case, defense counsel did not initially object to the questions, as he could have done, and thereby denied the trial court the opportunity to cure the error. 2004See United States v. Skandier, 758 F.2d 43, 44-45 (1st Cir.l985)(addressing how such questioning can result in burden shifting and comment improperly on the right to remain silent). ¶ 9 In this case, defense counsel did not initially object to the questions, as he could have done, and thereby denied the trial court the opportunity to cure the error. | 1 | 1 |
Wolfe v. Stategreen2 sentences2000The trial court later stated that “State’s exhibit 87 was admitted and an exception has been allowed the defendant.” ¶ 31 “Failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review unless the error constitutes fundamental error, i.e. plain error....” Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ; See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104(A)(l)(“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a p 2000The trial court later stated that “State’s exhibit 87 was admitted and an exception has been allowed the defendant.” ¶ 31 “Failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review unless the error constitutes fundamental error, i.e. plain error....” Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ; See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104(A)(l)(“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a p | 1 | 1 |
Dunham v. Stategreen2 sentences2000The trial court later stated that “State’s exhibit 87 was admitted and an exception has been allowed the defendant.” ¶ 31 “Failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review unless the error constitutes fundamental error, i.e. plain error....” Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ; See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104(A)(l)(“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a p 2000The trial court later stated that “State’s exhibit 87 was admitted and an exception has been allowed the defendant.” ¶ 31 “Failure to object with specificity to errors alleged to have occurred at trial, thus giving the trial court an opportunity to cure the error during the course of trial, waives that error for appellate review unless the error constitutes fundamental error, i.e. plain error....” Simpson v. State, 1994 OK CR 40, ¶ 2 , 876 P.2d 690, 693 ; See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104(A)(l)(“Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a p | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences2007Carter, 2006 OK CR 42 at ¶ 5 , 147 P.3d at 244 . 2007Carter, 2006 OK CR 42 at ¶ 5 , 147 P.3d at 244 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.