witness usually cures error (Oklahoma) · Go Syfert
← Oklahoma issues

witness usually cures error in Oklahoma

6 Oklahoma opinions name it 1 courts 1974–1987 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Kitchens v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1973 · cited in 4 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1974–1985
2 sentences

1985In Kitchens v. State, 513 P.2d 1300, 1304 (Okl.Cr.1973), we stated: [T]he court’s admonition to the jury not to consider the remarks of counsel, or a witness usually cures an error unless it is of such a nature after considering the evidence that the error appears to have determined the verdict....

1983Moreover, we believe that the trial court’s admonition to the jurors cured any error which may have occurred. 2 See, Kitchens v. State, 513 P.2d 1300 (Okl.Cr.1973) where this Court held that the court’s admonition to the jury not to consider the remarks of a witness usually cures an error unless it is of such a nature that after considering the evidence, the error appears to have determined the verdict.

14
Goodwin v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
1 sentence

1978See Price v. State, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 632 (1976) and Goodwin v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 571 (1973).

11
Price v. Stategreen
oklacrimapp · 1976 · cited in 1 Oklahoma opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
1 sentence

1978See Price v. State, Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 632 (1976) and Goodwin v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 571 (1973).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
McDaniel v. State green
oklacrimapp · 1973
2 sentences

1979This Court, speaking through Judge Bussey, stated: “An analogy can be made between the outburst complained of in the instant case, and the improper testimony in Kitchens v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1300 (1973), where this Court held that ‘the court’s admonition to the jury not to consider the remarks of counsel or a witness usually cures an error unless it is of such a nature after considering the evidence that the error appears to have determined the verdict.’ See also McDaniel v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 675 (1973).” The trial court was not requested to, nor did it immediately, admonish the

1974An analogy can be made between the outburst complained of in the instant case, and the improper testimony in Kitchens v. State, Okl.Cr., 513 P.2d 1300 (1973), where this Court held that “the court’s admonition to the jury not to consider the remarks of counsel or a witness usually cures an error unless it is of such a nature after considering the evidence that the error appears to have determined the verdict.” See also McDaniel v. State, Okl.Cr., 509 P.2d 675 (1973).

21974–1979
Hutcheson v. State neutral
oklacrimapp · 1985
1 sentence

1987Hutcheson v. State 695 P.2d 870 (Okl.Cr.1985).

11987–1987
Hammond v. State neutral
alactapp · 1935
2 sentences

1974In view of the overwhelming evidence presented in the instant case, and in view of the admonition given by the court immediately following the incident, it cannot be held to have been prejudicial to the rights of defendant. *799 Defendant cites Hammond v. State, 26 Ala.App. 391 , 160 So. 900 (1935) as authority that an outburst from a spectator is grounds for reversal, but it must be pointed out that in that case the Appellate Court said in reviewing the trial court that it “shows further that no corrective measure was taken by the judge.” For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinio

1974In view of the overwhelming evidence presented in the instant case, and in view of the admonition given by the court immediately following the incident, it cannot be held to have been prejudicial to the rights of defendant. *799 Defendant cites Hammond v. State, 26 Ala.App. 391 , 160 So. 900 (1935) as authority that an outburst from a spectator is grounds for reversal, but it must be pointed out that in that case the Appellate Court said in reviewing the trial court that it “shows further that no corrective measure was taken by the judge.” For all of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinio

11974–1974

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check