Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Elliott v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided April 18, 1988No. F-84-678Published

1Concurrence

PARKS, Judge,

specially concurring:

While I agree with the ultimate resolution in this case, I think certain arguments raised in appellant’s brief should be addressed. Appellant urges that an officer’s testimony alone is not sufficient to show that Miranda warnings were given. However, we have repeatedly held that, under certain circumstances, such testimony may be sufficient. Johnson v. State, 653 P.2d 219 (Okl.Cr.1982); Marshall v. State, 561 P.2d 1370 (Okl.Cr.1977). Further, appellant failed to object to the officer’s testimony at trial.

Appellant also complains about a confusing instruction…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Van Buskirk v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
  2. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1982
  3. Marshall v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API