¶1 (dissenting). I do not dissent to the, law as announced in this case, but am of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficent to establish the fact of the residence of petitioner in the State of California, after the parents of.the prosecutrix had come to Okla- . hoaaa and forcibly,taken, her and her child to the State of *68 California from tbeir established home in Oklahoma. In other words, I think the evidence showed that petitioner’s only reason for being in the State of California was to try and induce his wife to return with their child to her Oklahoma home. If the evidence was such as to establish the residence of petitioner in the State of California, as found by the majority opinion, then the opinion is correct.
86 Okla. Crim. 61
189 P.2d 420
Ex Parte Patrick
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided January 21, 1948
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1948-01-21
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1948-01-21
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1970
4 state decisions
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 →