The State of Oklahoma, by and through the district attorney or Attorney General, shall have the right to appeal an adverse ruling or order of a magistrate sustaining a motion to suppress evidence, quashing an information, sustaining a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, failing to find prosecutive merit in a hearing pursuant to Section 2-2-403 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, sustaining a demurrer to the information, binding the defendant over for trial on a charge other than the charge for the original offense, or discharging a defendant at the preliminary examination because of insufficiency of the evidence to establish either that a crime has been committed or that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a felony. Such an appeal shall be taken in accordance with the procedures provided in this act. Added by Laws 1987, c. 162, § 1, emerg. eff. June 25, 1987. Amended by Laws 1989, c. 348, § 15, eff. Nov. 1, 1989; Laws 2009, c. 234, § 133, emerg. eff. May 21, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
29
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case:
Newton v. State, 824 P.2d 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Newton v. State, 824 P.2d 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 10× “The State, pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1089.1 et seq, appealed this decision.”
Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “As a matter of law I do not find the subsequent application meets the requirements of 22 O.S.2001, § 1089.1(8)(9) and should be denied.”
State v. Davis, 823 P.2d 367 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The particular facts of the instant case render 22 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 1089.1, inappropriate as appellate authority.”
State v. Young, 1999 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
“Such an appeal shall be taken in accordance with the procedures provided in this act. (Emphasis added.) ¶ 9 The State is required to proceed according to certain rules and procedures in appealing adverse rulings to this Court.”
State v. Sittingdown, 2010 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
“¶ 2 The State appealed the adverse ruling of the magistrate pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, § 1089.1. Following a hearing before the Honorable Ray Dean Linder, District Judge, the ruling of the magistrate was affirmed.”
State v. Kudron, 816 P.2d 567 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Parr was issued pursuant to Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1089.1 and sustained the Magistrate’s ruling suppressing the evidence aforesaid.”
Langley v. State, 813 P.2d 526 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The prosecutor requested permission to reopen the case and in the alternative announced her intention to file a Rule Six appeal, now codified as 22 O.S.Supp. 1989, § 1089.1 et seq. The request to reopen was denied and the case set for a Rule Six appeal.”
State v. Rhodes, 788 P.2d 1380 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1089.1, the State brings this appeal.”
State v. Rhine, 773 P.2d 762 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.Supp. 1988, § 1089.1. The State next asserts that the magistrate erred in sustaining appellees' demurrer to the evidence because the evidence offered at preliminary hearing showed that a crime was committed, and reasonable cause to believe that appellees committed the…”
State v. Bezdicek, 2002 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
“¶ 3 The State filed an application to appeal from the adverse ruling of the magistrate, pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 1089.1 et seq., and the matter was assigned to the Honorable N.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1089.1(8)(9) — 1 case
Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
“As a matter of law I do not find the subsequent application meets the requirements of 22 O.S.2001, § 1089.1(8)(9) and should be denied.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.