Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

STATE v. HURT

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided December 4, 2014No. S-2013-476Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLewis, P.J.

T 1 I concur in the Court's conclusion that the order appealed is not one suppressing evidence and therefore an appeal by the State cannot proceed under section 1053(5) of Title 22. However, statutes and prior case law providing for an order quashing or setting aside an information, or granting a demurrer, are limited to certain defects appearing "on the face" of the information or indictment or in the grand jury process. 22 O.S.2011, § 493, 504; State v. Hammond, 1989 OK CR 25, ¶ 5, 775 P.2d 826, 828, overruled on other grounds, State v. Young, *111994 OK CR 25, 874 P.2d 57.1

T2 The order…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Maryland v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  4. General Motors Corp. v. RomeinSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Cox v. HartSupreme Court of the United States · 1923

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API