next proposition error in Oklahoma

1991We first rejected this argument in Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359, 365 (Okl.Cr.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900 , 109 S.Ct. 249 , 102 L.Ed.2d 238 (1988), and affirmed our position in Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 567 (Okl.Cr.1989).

1991We first rejected this argument in Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359, 365 (Okl.Cr. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 900 , 109 S.Ct. 249 , 102 L.Ed.2d 238 (1988), and affirmed our position in Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562, 567 (Okl.Cr. 1989).

1991In Green v. State, 713 P.2d 1032 (Okl.Cr. 1985), this Court examined the identical question of "whether it was error to permit the jury to consider, as aggravating circumstances, that [t]he murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony and that `the defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.'" We held that these were two separate circumstances and merely because the same evidence supports both does not mean they overlap.

1991In Green v. State, 713 P.2d 1032 (Okl.Cr.1985), this Court examined the identical question of “whether it was error to permit the jury to consider, as aggravating circumstances, that [t]he murder was committed by a person while serving a sentence of imprisonment on conviction of a felony and that 'the defendant was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person.’ ” We held that these were two separate circumstances and merely because the same evidence supports both does not mean they overlap.

1975Fallis v. Caldwell, Okl.Cr., 498 P.2d 426 , is unconstitutional as it amounts to a usurpation of the legislative function by this Court.

1975Although the evidence on which the verdict was based is of a circumstantial nature, we deem it sufficient to support the verdict. *1048 In Edwards v. State, Okl.Cr., 508 P.2d 699 (1973), this Court held: “Although the evidence relied on in the instant case was circumstantial, we have consistently held that where there is evidence, although entirely circumstantial, from which the jury may reasonably and logically find the defendant guilty, the weight, credibility and probative effect of such evidence is for the jury, and the Court of Criminal Appeals will not disturb the verdict for insufficien

1974In Stevenson v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 1114 , this Court, citing Taylor v. State, Okl.Cr., 286 P.2d 730 , set out those elements which the trial court should consider in passing upon a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence as follows, to-wit: “1.

1974In Stevenson v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 1114 , this Court, citing Taylor v. State, Okl.Cr., 286 P.2d 730 , set out those elements which the trial court should consider in passing upon a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence as follows, to-wit: "1.

1974In Stevenson v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 1114 , this Court, citing Taylor v. State, Okl.Cr., 286 P.2d 730 , set out those elements which the trial court should consider in passing upon a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence as follows, to-wit: “1.

1974In Stevenson v. State, Okl.Cr., 497 P.2d 1114 , this Court, citing Taylor v. State, Okl.Cr., 286 P.2d 730 , set out those elements which the trial court should consider in passing upon a motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence as follows, to-wit: "1.

1973In support of said contention the defendant cites State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276 , 182 S.W.2d 294 , wherein the conviction of a woman for the murder of her ex-husband’s wife was reversed because of the improper display of a gun which could not properly be admitted in evidence.

1973In support of said contention the defendant cites State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276 , 182 S.W.2d 294 , wherein the conviction of a woman for the murder of her ex-husband’s wife was reversed because of the improper display of a gun which could not properly be admitted in evidence.