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 1951–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Laslovich v. Stategreen2 sentences1984See, Laslovich v. State, 377 P.2d 977 (Okl.Cr.1962). 1978See, Laslovich v. State, Okl.Cr., 377 P.2d 977 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Russell v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See, Russell v. State, Okl.Cr., 528 P.2d 336 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
Fothergill v. Stategreen1 sentence1976See Fothergill v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 157 (1973) and Robertson v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 896 (1972).” The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his request for a sanity hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Stategreen1 sentence1976See Fothergill v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 157 (1973) and Robertson v. State, Okl.Cr., 503 P.2d 896 (1972).” The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his request for a sanity hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cargle v. State
green
2 sentences1999There must exist reasons to believe that the defendant’s claim of insanity is genuine and not simulated to delay justice, and the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. 909 P.2d at 815 . ¶ 12 Pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.3, Appellant filed a Motion for Determination of Competency based upon the allegation a psychotic disorder had rendered him incompetent to assist counsel. 3 Attached to the application were affidavits from Dr. Philip Murphy and Dr. J.R. 1999There must exist reasons to believe that the defendant's claim of insanity is genuine and not simulated to delay justice, and the finding of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. 909 P.2d at 815 . ś 12 Pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 1175.3, Appellant filed a Motion for Determination of Competency based upon the allegation a psychotic disorder had rendered him incompetent to assist counsel. [3] Attached to the application were affidavits from Dr. Philip Murphy and Dr. J.R. | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Halbert v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2011In Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 610 , 125 S.Ct. 2582, 2586 , 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its long standing holding that the federal constitution imposes no obligation on States to provide appellate review of criminal convictions. 2 11 Here, in accordance with state statute, Petitioner was allowed a jury of twelve persons to hear the sanity inquiry. 22 0.8.2001, § 1005. 2011In Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 610 , 125 S.Ct. 2582, 2586 , 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its long standing holding that the federal constitution imposes no obligation on States to provide appellate review of criminal convictions. 2 11 Here, in accordance with state statute, Petitioner was allowed a jury of twelve persons to hear the sanity inquiry. 22 0.8.2001, § 1005. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Denton v. State
green
2 sentences1951“Where counsel for accused files a written request for a sanity hearing, supported by affidavit of accused’s wife and statement of counsel expressing his personal belief that accused was presently insane then a legal doubt of defendant’s sanity arises, and it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to submit the issue to a jury.” The Johnson case, supra, quotes from Denton v. State, 58 Okla. 1951Cr. 275 , 53 P. 2d 1136 , where in discussing “legal doubt” this court said: “When the motion is made and supported by such a showing, then a legal doubt of defendant’s sanity arises, and it is the duty of the trial court to impanel a jury and to try the issue. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.