TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Willison

Ex Parte Willison, 1930 OK 250, 288 P. 331
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 20, 1930
Docket
No. 20958
Judges
Hefner, Mason, Clark, Oullison, Andrews, Lester, Hunt, Riley
Citations
288 P. 3311930 OK 250143 Okla. 1741930 Okla. LEXIS 591

Opinion of the Court — Hefner

HEFNER, J.

This is an application for a writ of 'habeas corpus. The petitioner was charged with robbery by firearms before the county judge of Craig county, sitting as a magistrate. The principal evidence against the petitioner was the testimony of an accomplice. The petitioner alleges that there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accomplice to show sufficient cause.

The petitioner also alleges that on the 4th day of November, 1929, he filed in the Criminal Court of Appeals his petition for writ of habeas corpus and that the same was heard before that court and after a hearing and a review of the evidence the court denied the petitioner his release. It is also stated that all of the evidence in the preliminary hearing was attached to the petititon for writ of habeas corpus filed with the clerk of the Criminal Court of Appeals.

The Criminal Court of Appeals in its opinion, after reviewing the evidence, said:

“Record examined, and held, that there was testimony before the examining magistrate tending to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice. * * *” Ex parte Eason et al. (Okla. Cr.) 282 Pac. 6584 .

It is the duty of the Criminal Court of Appeals of this state to construe the criminal laws thereof, and since it held that there was testimony before the examining magistrate tending to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, this court will follow the construction placed thereon by the Criminal Court of Appeals. The writ is denied.

MASON, O. .J., and CLARK, OULLISON, &WINDALL, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. LESTER, Y. O. J., and HUNT and RILEY, JJ., absent.

Note. — See “Habeas Corpus,” 29 C. J. §203, p. 180, n. 33.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1936: 11938: 11945: 11946: 11949: 11956: 11958: 11969: 11973: 11990: 11991: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Deshazer v. National Biscuit Co.1946 OK 35, 165 P.2d 816
  2. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co. v. Newport1945 OK 199, 159 P.2d 726
  3. Keener Oil & Gas Co. v. Bushong1936 OK 147, 56 P.2d 819
  4. Coker-Mitchell Company v. State Industrial Court1969 OK 30, 450 P.2d 894
  5. Bond Marble & Tile Office v. Rose1958 OK 63, 322 P.2d 1063
  6. LB JACKSON DRILLING COMPANY v. Prichard1956 OK 344, 308 P.2d 284

Most recent

  1. Thrasher v. Act-Fast Labor Pool, Inc.1991 OK 12, 806 P.2d 640
  2. Oklahoma Property Casualty Guarantee Ass'n v. Tipton1990 OK CIV APP 107, 807 P.2d 299
  3. Opinion No. 73-164 (1973) Ag(Okla. Att’y Gen. July 18, 1973)
  4. Coker-Mitchell Company v. State Industrial Court1969 OK 30, 450 P.2d 894
  5. Bond Marble & Tile Office v. Rose1958 OK 63, 322 P.2d 1063
  6. LB JACKSON DRILLING COMPANY v. Prichard1956 OK 344, 308 P.2d 284

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list