Legal Opinion · Dissent

Futerll v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 28, 1972No. A-17330Published

1DissentBrett, Judge

This is another example of the prosecution’s multiple trials at the taxpayer’s expense. For that reason I added the special concurrence on defendant’s conviction for first-degree rape, which is reported in 493 P.2d 1139. The several offenses committed by defendant arose out of a single transaction, which should have been prosecuted under one information, with the several offenses being listed under separate counts. It is for that reason I am compelled to dissent to this decision.

The offenses committed by this defendant were of a heinous nature for which the defendant should receive…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Callins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1972
  2. Householder v. RameyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1971
  3. Futerll v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API