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 2 courts 1942–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meeks v. State
green
2 sentences2008In Meeks v. State, 1994 OK CR 20, ¶ 7 , 872 P.2d 936, 939 , the Court set out a model instruction defining the elements of the offense, in relevant part, as (1) keeping or maintaining; (2) any dwelling house; (3) used for the keeping or selling of controlled dangerous substances; (4) in violation of the drug laws. 2008In Meeks v. State, 1994 OK CR 20, ¶ 7 , 872 P.2d 936, 939 , the Court set out a model instruction defining the elements of the offense, in relevant part, as (1) keeping or maintaining; (2) any dwelling house; (3) used for the keeping or selling of controlled dangerous substances; (4) in violation of the drug laws. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dugan v. State
green
1 sentence1961The recent case of Dugan v. State, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 833 , contains a model instruction and should be followed in instances where the trial court has a duty to make and instruct on the matter of election. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Bowers v. State
green
2 sentences1959It was the duty of the jury, and they were so instructed, to consider the instructions as a whole and no part thereof to the exclusion of any other part." Instruction No. 5 that we have heretofore quoted is comparable in form with the model instruction set out in paragraph 6 of the syllabus in Jones v. State, supra. Above what we have said on the subject, we note that the present assignment of error has not been properly presented in defendant's motion for new trial, because in said motion the objection was that the court erred "in giving its instruction No. 1 to 9, both inclusive." In Bowers 1959It was the duty of the jury, and they were so instructed, to consider the instructions as a whole and no part thereof to the exclusion of any other part." Instruction No. 5 that we have heretofore quoted is comparable in form with the model instruction set out in paragraph 6 of the syllabus in Jones v. State, supra. Above what we have said on the subject, we note that the present assignment of error has not been properly presented in defendant's motion for new trial, because in said motion the objection was that the court erred "in giving its instruction No. 1 to 9, both inclusive." In Bowers | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Chapman v. State
neutral
1 sentence1954We are of the opinion that instruction No. 3 should have been enlarged including in keeping with the defendant’s theory (after eliminating the last line thereof), the proposition to the effect, “you are instructed that the defendant herein specifically denies having received the stolen property but if you find from the evidence to the contrary, then and only in that event, you may consider evidence of other alleged offenses for the sole and only purpose of determining guilty knowledge and intent” of the defendant in receiving the stolen property for which he is on trial. 'This-instruction is i | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Smith v. State
neutral
1 sentence1954We are of the opinion that instruction No. 3 should have been enlarged including in keeping with the defendant’s theory (after eliminating the last line thereof), the proposition to the effect, “you are instructed that the defendant herein specifically denies having received the stolen property but if you find from the evidence to the contrary, then and only in that event, you may consider evidence of other alleged offenses for the sole and only purpose of determining guilty knowledge and intent” of the defendant in receiving the stolen property for which he is on trial. 'This-instruction is i | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Cimarron Utilities Co. v. Safranko
green
2 sentences1951Cimarron Utilities Co. v. Safranko et al., 187 Okla. 86 , 101 P. 2d 258 . 1951Cimarron Utilities Co. v. Safranko et al., 187 Okla. 86 , 101 P. 2d 258 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Incorporated Town of Comanche v. Works
neutral
1 sentence1942For a model instruction on circumstantial evidence see Jones v. State, 69 Okla. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Jones v. State
neutral
1 sentence1942Cr. 244 , 101 P. 2d 860 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.