Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

143 Okla. 174

288 P 331

Ex Parte Willison

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided May 20, 1930

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1930-05-20

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 1991

10 state decisions

301930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HEFNER, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 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.

¶3 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.

¶4 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.

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

/143/okla/174 · .json · Public domain