Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hardiman v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided September 14, 1990No. F-88-848Published

1Concurrence

■ JOHNSON, Judge,

concurring in result.

While I concur in the result of the majority opinion herein as it relates to the first and second assignments of error, I need to speak to the third proposition of alleged error. The first proposition of error had to do with the fact that convictions used were outside the ten-year limitation found in 12 O.S.1981, § 2609, and further, the second proposition was the failure by the State to provide proper written notice as it relates to the introduction of such evidence; I concur in the court’s findings as it relates to both of these propositions.

The third…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Robinson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1987
  2. Campbell v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1981
  3. Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988
  4. Shipman v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1982
  5. Gilbert v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1988

2 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