Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Wofford

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided May 7, 1976No. O-76-121Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrett, Presiding Judge

The provisions of § 742 have been part of the Oklahoma Statutes since statehood. Today for the first time this Court extends the requirement of that statute, that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated, to a preliminary examination. I dissent to that decision.

First, I believe the construction of § 742 in the majority opinion ignores the plain ■language of that statute which provides:

“A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. People v. McRaeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Curreri v. ViceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1935
  3. State Ex Rel. Jeffrey v. TessmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  4. In Re SchwitallaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. Kern v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974

4 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