Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Little Raven

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 24, 1975No. O-75-143Published

1ConcurrenceBrett, Presiding Judge

(specially concurring) .

I agree with the opinion of the majority of the Court to the extent that it holds that the sustaining of a motion to quash or set aside the information does not constitute a bar to further prosecution for the same offense. This is true even though the trial court also enter an order discharging the defendant. The effect of sustaining a motion to quash is to eradicate the information and to leave the case in the same posture as it was before any information was filed.

Because this area of law has been the source of some confusion, however, I feel that it is important to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Place v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1956
  2. State v. WaltonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1925
  3. Cerday v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API