6 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hall v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618, 621 (Okla.Crim.App.1981), cer t. denied, 455 U.S. 951 , 102 S.Ct. 1455 , 71 L.Ed.2d 666 (1982). 1989See Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618, 621 (Okla. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence1989See Williams v. State, 565 P.2d 46, 48 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Oklahomagreen1 sentence1989See Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618, 621 (Okla.Crim.App.1981), cer t. denied, 455 U.S. 951 , 102 S.Ct. 1455 , 71 L.Ed.2d 666 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Stinson v. Smithgreen1 sentence1989See Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618, 621 (Okla.Crim.App.1981), cer t. denied, 455 U.S. 951 , 102 S.Ct. 1455 , 71 L.Ed.2d 666 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Krall v. Pennsylvaniagreen1 sentence1989See Hall v. State, 635 P.2d 618, 621 (Okla.Crim.App.1981), cer t. denied, 455 U.S. 951 , 102 S.Ct. 1455 , 71 L.Ed.2d 666 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hopkins v. Reeves
green
2 sentences2001In Cabana v. Bullock (citations omitted), however, we rejected precisely such a reading and stated that `our ruling in Enmund does not concern the guilt or innocence of the defendant it establishes no new elements of the crime of murder that must be found by the jury ... and does not affect the state's definition of any substantive offense.'" Reeves, 524 U.S. at 99 , 118 S.Ct. at 1902 . ¶ 153 Ironically, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Nebraska capital felony-murder statute (under which they affirmed the death sentence) did not require proof of intent to kill, while instruction on non 2001In Cabana v. Bullock (citations omitted), however, we rejected precisely such a reading and stated that `our ruling in Enmund does not concern the guilt or innocence of the defendant it establishes no new elements of the crime of murder that must be found by the jury ... and does not affect the state's definition of any substantive offense.'" Reeves, 524 U.S. at 99 , 118 S.Ct. at 1902 . ¶ 153 Ironically, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Nebraska capital felony-murder statute (under which they affirmed the death sentence) did not require proof of intent to kill, while instruction on non | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Thissen v. State
green
1 sentence2024McDaris also inferentially overruled Thissen v. State , 1922 OK CR 143 , 21 Okl. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Oxendine v. State
green
2 sentences2005The use of the following instruction was approved in Oxzendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104 , 335 P.2d 940 (OLK.Czr.1958): You are instructed that homicide committed with a design to effect death is not the less murder because the perpetrator was in a state of voluntary intoxication at the time. 2005The use of the following instruction was approved in Oxzendine v. State, 1958 OK CR 104 , 335 P.2d 940 (OLK.Czr.1958): You are instructed that homicide committed with a design to effect death is not the less murder because the perpetrator was in a state of voluntary intoxication at the time. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.