|
|
|
| State Appeals |
|
State v. Sayerwinnie,
2007 OK CR 11 (April 10, 2007): State Appeals: This is a quirky opinion involving a State appeal. Judge Virgil Black, Oklahoma County, suppressed a confession at a Jackson v. Denno hearing. The State announced intent to appeal. The Court DENIED the appeal on the basis that the State failed to show that the confession formed a substantial part of the proof of the pending charge and the State's ability to prosecute the case is substantially impaired or restricted absent the suppressed or excluded evidence. Thus, in the absence of such a showing by the State in this case, resolution of the appeal is not in the "best interests of justice."
|
|
|
City of Elk City v. Taylor,
2007 OK CR 15 (April 23, 2007): State Appeals: The municipal court of Elk City is a court not of record. Taylor was cited in that court with six counts of violating a city ordinance prohibiting inoperative junk vehicles from being kept closer than 50 feet to any street within the city. The municipal court found him guilty of all six counts. Taylor appealed to the district court in Beckham County and, after a trial de novo, the court reversed the findings of the municipal court as to counts 1, 2, 4, and 5. The city then lodged an appeal seeking reinstatement of these four counts (someone in Elk City must really, really, really not like Mr. Taylor). The city first went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court but was redirected to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals which promptly DISMISSED the appeal because under current statutes the city is not entitled to appeal (but a defendant would be).
|
|
State v. Ann Seibel,
No. S-2007-1088 (Okl.Cr., October 17, 2008) (unpublished): 1. State Appeals; 2. Demurrers: Seibel was charged with Workers Compensation Fraud in Oklahoma County. Although she was bound over for trial, District Judge Kenneth Watson granted her Demurrer and Motion to Quash. The State appealed, seeking to reinstate the case. HELD: APPEAL DISMISSED because the district court did not direct that appropriate curative action be taken when it issued the order granting the demurrer. This constituted a bar to prosecution. In addition, although the State purported to appeal on a reserved question of law, it did not designate a question of law, but rather sought to reverse the district court's order that the facts alleged did not constitute a crime which involved a mixed question of law and fact. Since no useful purpose remained in the appeal, it was therefore DISMISSED.
|
|
|
|
