Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kinsey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 24, 1990No. F-86-300Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partParks, Presiding Judge

I agree with the majority that appellant’s conviction should be affirmed. However, I write separately because I disagree with much of the majority’s analysis of appellant’s second proposition of error.

For his second proposition, appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to give his requested theory of defense instruction. The majority is correct in stating that appellant failed to properly preserve this issue for review and such failure waives all but fundamental error. Because the instructions given fairly and accurately stated the applicable law, appellant’s second…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Cupp v. NaughtenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. People v. SanchezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  3. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
  4. United States v. Thomas L. PackCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
  5. Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1968

7 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