Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hartness v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided August 4, 1988No. F-85-543Published

1Concurrence

PARKS, Judge,

specially concurring:

I write separately only to comment on the issue of the form of the verdict. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 919 requires that a “verdict not in form” be sent back to the jury so that the verdict may be put in a form which may be clearly understood. In the present case, the jury returned a verdict of “six years suspended.” It was in proper form. The trial court, through the exercise of its discretionary powers, refused to suspend the sentence. This Court has repeatedly held that a jury’s recommendation of a suspended sentence may be treated as sur-plusage. King v. State,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wofford v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1982
  2. King v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1976
  3. Bowers v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975
  4. Prevatte v. City of TulsaCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API