Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hammond

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided June 13, 1989No. S-87-994Published

1DissentLane, Judge

I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion and also the dissenting opinion of Judge Lumpkin for the reason that I believe that the motion being considered by the trial court was in actuality a demurrer. The motion was styled “Amended Motion To Quash”, but it stated:

*829“Comes Now the Defendant, Michael Wayne Hammond, by and through his attorney of record, Everett R. Bennett, Jr., and hereby moves this Honorable Court to quash the Information filed in this case on the grounds that the State of Oklahoma has failed to allege the necessary elements in the Information for the crime of Assault and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. TruesdellCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1980
  2. Whaley v. District Court of Mayes CountyCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API