Legal Opinion
Young v. MacY
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided January 23, 2001No. 93,988PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOUDREAU, Justice.
{1 The issue presented in this case is whether the District Attorney (DA) who subpoenaed a child to testify on behalf of the government in a criminal prosecution must pay the additional expense incurred when the child testified outside the presence of the defendant pursuant to a court order obtained under 22 0.$.1991, § 758. We hold that the DA who subpoenaed the child to testify is responsible for payment of this expense.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
T2 The DA subpoenaed a twelve-year-old child to testify for the government in a erimi-nal prosecution that involved an…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Kluver v. Weatherford Hospital AuthoritySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Miscellaneous Docket 1 v. Miscellaneous Docket 2Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Microsoft Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
- Manley v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1999
- Laubach v. MorganSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Croslin v. Enerlex, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
- DEPT. OF SECURITIES EX REL. FAUGHT v. BlairSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
- Bailey v. Farmers Insurance Co.Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2006
- Oklahoma Department of Securities ex rel. Faught v. BlairSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.