52 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keeling v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988) and Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). 1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988); Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). | 4 | 4 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988) and Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). 1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988); Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). | 4 | 4 |
Parsons v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988) and Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). 1995See Keeling v. State, 810 P.2d 1298, 1302 (Okl.Cr. 1991); Smith v. State, 765 P.2d 795, 796 (Okl.Cr. 1988); Parsons v. State, 740 P.2d 167, 169 (Okl.Cr. 1987). | 4 | 4 |
Ohio v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2023See also Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2015) (setting out factors which can affect whether a child's statements to non-law enforcement individuals are non-testimonial). 2023See also Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2015) (setting out factors which can affect whether a child's statements to non-law enforcement individuals are non-testimonial). | 3 | 3 |
Marshall v. Stategreen2 sentences2010S ee Vann v. State, 229 P.3d 197, 206 (Alaska App., 2010) ("when the government's expert is simply a conduit for an absent witness's analysis, courts find a violation of the confrontation clause; but when the government's expert offers their own analysis, based in part on test data obtained from other people, courts find that the confrontation clause is satisfied."); see also United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 636 (4th Cir. 2009) ("An expert witness's reliance on evidence that Crawford would bar if offered directly only becomes a problem where the witness is used as little more than a con 2010S ee Vann v. State, 229 P.3d 197, 206 (Alaska App., 2010) ("when the government's expert is simply a conduit for an absent witness's analysis, courts find a violation of the confrontation clause; but when the government's expert offers their own analysis, based in part on test data obtained from other people, courts find that the confrontation clause is satisfied."); see also United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d 625, 636 (4th Cir. 2009) ("An expert witness's reliance on evidence that Crawford would bar if offered directly only becomes a problem where the witness is used as little more than a con | 3 | 3 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2017On re-cross examination, defense counsel asked if Appellant ever specifically made plans to accept money from Burwell. ¶ 18 “The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a defendant is provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness and avails himself of that opportunity at a prior hearing, the confrontation clause is satisfied and a transcript of the prior hearing is admissible.” Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 85 , 147 P.3d 245 , 266 citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . 2017On re-cross examination, defense counsel asked if Appellant ever specifically made plans to accept money from Burwell. ¶ 18 “The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a defendant is provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness and avails himself of that opportunity at a prior hearing, the confrontation clause is satisfied and a transcript of the prior hearing is admissible.” Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 85 , 147 P.3d 245 , 266 citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . | 2 | 11 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2020These decisions teach that "[a] witness is not 'unavailable' for purposes of the . . . exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain [her] presence at trial." Roberts , 448 U.S. at 74 (quoting Barber , 390 U.S. at 724-25). 2020These decisions teach that "[a] witness is not 'unavailable' for purposes of the . . . exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain [her] presence at trial." Roberts , 448 U.S. at 74 (quoting Barber , 390 U.S. at 724-25 ). | 2 | 5 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2004Though not directly on point, we find the factors identified in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) instructive in our determination of whether the Confrontation Clause error here can be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2004Though not directly on point, we find the factors identified in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) instructive in our determination of whether the Confrontation Clause error here can be found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 2 | 4 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusettsgreen2 sentences2020See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 327 (2009) ("The defendant always has the burden of raising his Confrontation Clause objection[.]") (emphasis in original)). 2020See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U.S. 305, 327 (2009) ("The defendant always has the burden of raising his Confrontation Clause objection[.]") (emphasis in original)). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of S.T.G.green2 sentences2000Id. at 1253; see also In re S.T.G., 1991 OK 11 , 806 P.2d 636, 638 (OK 1991) (while there are similarities between criminal cases and parental termination cases ... "they are not the same"). 2000Id. at 1253; see also In re S.T.G., 1991 OK 11 , 806 P.2d 636, 638 (OK 1991) (while there are similarities between criminal cases and parental termination cases ... "they are not the same"). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of STGgreen2 sentences2000Id. at 1253; see also In re S.T.G., 1991 OK 11 , 806 P.2d 636, 638 (OK 1991) (while there are similarities between criminal cases and parental termination cases ... "they are not the same"). 2000Id. at 1253; see also In re S.T.G., 1991 OK 11 , 806 P.2d 636, 638 (OK 1991) (while there are similarities between criminal cases and parental termination cases ... "they are not the same"). | 2 | 2 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences1997Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986); Scott v. State, 891 P.2d 1283, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1995). 1997Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674, 686-87 (1986); Scott v. State, 891 P.2d 1283, 1292 (Okl.Cr.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Dilworth v. Stategreen2 sentences1988The State argues that admission of the preliminary hearing testimo *391 ny is discretionary with the trial court, citing Dilworth v. State, 611 P.2d 256, 259 (Okl.Crim.App.1980). 1980See e.g., Dilworth v. State, Okl.Cr., 611 P.2d 256 (1980); Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 267 (1976); In Re Bishop, Okl.Cr., 443 P.2d 768 (1968). | 2 | 2 |
Barber v. Pagegreen2 sentences2020These decisions teach that "[a] witness is not 'unavailable' for purposes of the . . . exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain [her] presence at trial." Roberts , 448 U.S. at 74 (quoting Barber , 390 U.S. at 724-25). 2020These decisions teach that "[a] witness is not 'unavailable' for purposes of the . . . exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain [her] presence at trial." Roberts , 448 U.S. at 74 (quoting Barber , 390 U.S. at 724-25 ). | 1 | 6 |
THOMPSON v. STATEgreen2 sentences2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). 2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). | 1 | 2 |
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Cuesta-Rodriguez , 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 39, 241 P.3d at 229; Marshall , 2010 OK CR 8, ¶ 31, 232 P.3d at 475-476. 2020Cuesta-Rodriguez , 2010 OK CR 23, ¶ 39, 241 P.3d at 229; Marshall , 2010 OK CR 8, ¶ 31, 232 P.3d at 475-476. | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Based upon the facts of this case, we find the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of her statement. ¶51 Relying on Miller v. State , 2004 OK CR 29, ¶ 27, 98 P.3d 738, 744 Appellant asserts that even if we find the hearsay statement nontestimonial, in order for it to be admissible, we must find that it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and there is no firmly rooted exception that fits the statement in this case. 2017Based upon the facts of this case, we find the Confrontation Clause did not bar the admission of her statement. ¶51 Relying on Miller v. State , 2004 OK CR 29, ¶ 27, 98 P.3d 738, 744 Appellant asserts that even if we find the hearsay statement nontestimonial, in order for it to be admissible, we must find that it falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and there is no firmly rooted exception that fits the statement in this case. | 1 | 2 |
Stouffer v. Stategreen2 sentences2017On re-cross examination, defense counsel asked if Appellant ever specifically made plans to accept money from Burwell. ¶ 18 “The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a defendant is provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness and avails himself of that opportunity at a prior hearing, the confrontation clause is satisfied and a transcript of the prior hearing is admissible.” Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 85 , 147 P.3d 245 , 266 citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . 2017On re-cross examination, defense counsel asked if Appellant ever specifically made plans to accept money from Burwell. ¶ 18 “The United States Supreme Court has held that, when a defendant is provided an opportunity to cross examine the witness and avails himself of that opportunity at a prior hearing, the confrontation clause is satisfied and a transcript of the prior hearing is admissible.” Stouffer v. State, 2006 OK CR 46, ¶ 85 , 147 P.3d 245 , 266 citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. at 1374 . | 1 | 2 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2014As such, the certificates are admissible and admission of those certificates does not violate the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment." 13 Neither party raised the Confrontation Clause at the hearing with the trial court, nor did they brief the issue . ¶14 The Confrontation Clause provides that " [i]n all criminal prosecutions , the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." 14 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that "under the Confrontation Clause, testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted against the accused in a criminal 2014As such, the certificates are admissible and admission of those certificates does not violate the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment." 13 Neither party raised the Confrontation Clause at the hearing with the trial court, nor did they brief the issue . ¶14 The Confrontation Clause provides that " [i]n all criminal prosecutions , the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him." 14 The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that "under the Confrontation Clause, testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted against the accused in a criminal | 1 | 2 |
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.green2 sentences1995Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193 , 107 S.Ct. at 1719 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 172 . 1995Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193 , 107 S.Ct. at 1719 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 172 . | 1 | 2 |
Cruz v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1995Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193 , 107 S.Ct. at 1719 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 172 . 1995Cruz, 481 U.S. at 193 , 107 S.Ct. at 1719 , 95 L.Ed.2d at 172 . | 1 | 2 |
Seely v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Matter of W.D., 1985 OK 65 , ¶13, 709 P.2d 1037 , 1042 ("While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common law."); Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008) ("In order for hearsay statements to be admissible against a defendant at a criminal trial, two separate requirements must be me 2014Matter of W.D., 1985 OK 65 , ¶13, 709 P.2d 1037 , 1042 ("While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common law."); Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008) ("In order for hearsay statements to be admissible against a defendant at a criminal trial, two separate requirements must be me | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas J. Hard v. Burlington Northern Railroad Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brooks v. Zahngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States of America Ex Rel. Craig S. Owen v. Hon. Daniel J. McMann Warden of Auburn State Prison, Auburn, New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vann v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frederick v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Humphreys v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Browning v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dodd v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Littlejohn v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Grant C. Affleckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Omalza v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Plantz v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Britt v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Lewis (On Remand)green | 1 | 1 |
| Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Company, Inc.neutral | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
THOMPSON v. STATE
green
2 sentences2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). 2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
In Re AM
green
2 sentences2018This Court has stated repeatedly, however, that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not implicated in parental rights termination proceedings as the confrontation clause only applies to criminal cases. *890 In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 9 n.7, 13 P.3d 484 , 487 n.7 ; In re Rich , 1979 OK 173 , ¶ 13 n.21, 604 P.2d 1248 , 1253 n.21. 2018This Court has stated repeatedly, however, that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not implicated in parental rights termination proceedings as the confrontation clause only applies to criminal cases. *890 In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 9 n.7, 13 P.3d 484 , 487 n.7 ; In re Rich , 1979 OK 173 , ¶ 13 n.21, 604 P.2d 1248 , 1253 n.21. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Rich
green
2 sentences2018This Court has stated repeatedly, however, that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not implicated in parental rights termination proceedings as the confrontation clause only applies to criminal cases. *890 In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 9 n.7, 13 P.3d 484 , 487 n.7 ; In re Rich , 1979 OK 173 , ¶ 13 n.21, 604 P.2d 1248 , 1253 n.21. 2018This Court has stated repeatedly, however, that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not implicated in parental rights termination proceedings as the confrontation clause only applies to criminal cases. *890 In re A.M. & R.W. , 2000 OK 82 , ¶ 9 n.7, 13 P.3d 484 , 487 n.7 ; In re Rich , 1979 OK 173 , ¶ 13 n.21, 604 P.2d 1248 , 1253 n.21. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Tennessee v. Street
green
2 sentences2018Crawford , 541 U.S. at 59-60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. at 1369 n.9 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L. 2018Crawford , 541 U.S. at 59-60 n.9, 124 S.Ct. at 1369 n.9 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences2005The clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). 116 The confrontation clause requires that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence against an accused at a criminal trial only when the de-clarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 2005The clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). 116 The confrontation clause requires that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence against an accused at a criminal trial only when the de-clarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Dutton v. Evans
green
2 sentences1985The United States Supreme Court, in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 , (1970), stated: "It is not argued, nor could it be, that the constitutional right to confrontation requires that no hearsay can ever be introduced." "`While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common l 1985The United States Supreme Court, in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 , (1970), stated: "It is not argued, nor could it be, that the constitutional right to confrontation requires that no hearsay can ever be introduced." "`While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common l | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Matter of WD
green
2 sentences2014Matter of W.D., 1985 OK 65 , ¶13, 709 P.2d 1037 , 1042 ("While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common law."); Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008) ("In order for hearsay statements to be admissible against a defendant at a criminal trial, two separate requirements must be me 2014Matter of W.D., 1985 OK 65 , ¶13, 709 P.2d 1037 , 1042 ("While it may readily be conceded that hearsay rules and the confrontation clause are generally designed to protect similar values, it is quite a different thing to suggest that the overlap is complete and that the Confrontation Clause is nothing more or less than a codification of the rules of hearsay and their exception as they existed at common law."); Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008) ("In order for hearsay statements to be admissible against a defendant at a criminal trial, two separate requirements must be me | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2013Bullcoming v. New Mexico, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct 2705, 2709-10 , 180 LEd.2d 610 (2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hosp. green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Hunt v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Lott v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jones v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Jones v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Burks v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In re Bondurant green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Giles v. California green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Honeycutt v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| White v. Illinois green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Neill v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Beck v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| California v. Green red | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Bruton v. United States green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Richardson v. Marsh green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Newbury v. State green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In Re Habeas Corpus of Bishop green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.