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.
6 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stout v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (OkI.Cr.1982). 1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (Okl.Cr. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (OkI.Cr.1982). 1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (Okl.Cr. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Goforth v. Stategreen2 sentences1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (OkI.Cr.1982). 1995See Williamson, 812 P.2d at 396 ; Stout, 693 P.2d at 622-623 ; Goforth v. State, 644 P.2d 114, 118 (Okl.Cr. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gillam Kerleygreen2 sentences1994United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 940 (7th Cir.1988). 1994United States v. Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 940 (7th Cir.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Opper v. United States
green
2 sentences1998In Thornburgh , the Court held that a defendant's confession could not be introduced into evidence until the State had presented substantial evidence tending to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. .In Fontenot, 881 P.2d at 77-78 , this Court eliminated the corpus delicti rule and adopted the standard established in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). 1998In Thornburgh , the Court held that a defendant's confession could not be introduced into evidence until the State had presented substantial evidence tending to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. .In Fontenot, 881 P.2d at 77-78 , this Court eliminated the corpus delicti rule and adopted the standard established in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). | 3 | 1996–2026 |
Fontenot v. State
green
2 sentences1998The district court also ordered the charge dismissed and bond exonerated, and stayed the order of dismissal and exoneration of the bond pending the State’s appeal. ¶ 11 On December 5, 1994, in an unpublished opinion (State v. Tilley, Case No. F-93-660), this Court reversed the district court’s order finding that the corpus delicti rule set forth in Thornburgh had been overruled by Fontenot v. State, 1994 OK CR 42 , 881 P.2d 69 . 3 Thereafter, Tilley filed a Petition for Rehearing arguing, in part, that the Court’s decision improperly subjected him to an ex post facto application of substantive 1998The district court also ordered the charge dismissed and bond exonerated, and stayed the order of dismissal and exoneration of the bond pending the State’s appeal. ¶ 11 On December 5, 1994, in an unpublished opinion (State v. Tilley, Case No. F-93-660), this Court reversed the district court’s order finding that the corpus delicti rule set forth in Thornburgh had been overruled by Fontenot v. State, 1994 OK CR 42 , 881 P.2d 69 . 3 Thereafter, Tilley filed a Petition for Rehearing arguing, in part, that the Court’s decision improperly subjected him to an ex post facto application of substantive | 3 | 1995–1998 |
Hain v. State
green
1 sentence1998"Defining the class of offenders potentially eligible for the death penalty is not a function of 10 O.S.Supp.[1993], § 1104.2." Hain, 852 P.2d at 748 . [2] In Thornburgh , the Court held that a defendant's confession could not be introduced into evidence until the State had presented substantial evidence tending to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. [3] In Fontenot, 881 P.2d at 77-78 , this Court eliminated the corpus delicti rule and adopted the standard established in Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
California v. Ramos
green
2 sentences1998The Opper standard simply requires that a confession be supported by substantial independent evidence which tends to establish its trustworthiness. [4] Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 , 75 S.Ct. 158, 164-65 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). [5] Sheriff Bill Noland was unaware Tilley had committed another murder when he began questioning Tilley regarding the James murder. [6] We need not address what effect this error had on the punishment stage of trial as this matter must be remanded to the district court for resentencing. [7] See California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3460 , 1998The Opper standard simply requires that a confession be supported by substantial independent evidence which tends to establish its trustworthiness. [4] Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 , 75 S.Ct. 158, 164-65 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954). [5] Sheriff Bill Noland was unaware Tilley had committed another murder when he began questioning Tilley regarding the James murder. [6] We need not address what effect this error had on the punishment stage of trial as this matter must be remanded to the district court for resentencing. [7] See California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 1014 , 103 S.Ct. 3446, 3460 , | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Carolina v. State
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 1297 . [5] Appellant confessed to and described the murder at least three times; in private with Rinker; before the entire group; and while walking with Bishop, Cooper, Seymour and Edwin Monks. [6] Both Appellant and the State develop their arguments on this proposition based upon the corpus delicti rule. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.