Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Young

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided April 27, 1994No. S-93-168Published

1Concurrence

LUMPKIN, Presiding Judge,

specially concurring:

I concur in the Order of the Court. I write specially only to elaborate on why the State cannot further prosecute this particular action.

Rowell v. Smith, 534 P.2d 689 (Okl.Cr.1975), cited as authority for this bar, comes from a long line of cases making it clear further prosecution is barred, not because of any Jeopardy considerations, but because of statutory ones. The sustaining of a Demurrer to the indictment or information constitutes a statutory bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless it appears of record that the trial court…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WaldrepCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1945
  2. State v. WaltonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
  3. State v. TylerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1946
  4. State v. MazurekCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1976
  5. Rowell v. SmithCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API