Tiger v. State

MANDATORY SENTENCE REVIEW O.S.Supp.1987,

Pursuant (1) 701.13(C),

§ we must determine whether imposed

the sentence of death was under passion, prejudice any

influence of or other (2) factor,

arbitrary whether evi- supports jury’s finding ag-

dence of an

gravating circumstance enumerated in §

O.S.Supp.1981, carefully 701.12. After re-

weighing aggravators all mitigating

evidence, we have determined the “hei-

nous, aggravator upon atrocious cruel” or penalty

which the death was based was factu- substantiated,

ally amply supported by

the evidence at trial. We further

find no indication the record that imposed

sentence death was under passion, prejudice,

influence

arbitrary factor.

We find no in Appellant’s reversal, warranting

case modification or dis-

missal, and therefore AFFIRM the

and sentence of the trial court.

JOHNSON, P.J., CHAPEL, V.P.J., and STRUBHAR, JJ.,

LUMPKIN and concur. Benjamin TIGER, Petitioner,

Thomas Oklahoma, Respondent.

The STATE of

No. C-91-973. Appeals

Court Criminal Oklahoma.

June Aug.

As Corrected

Rehearing Denied Oct. County arraignment Mayes for formal guilty. At plea he entered

where filed a Amended that time Second 1,1991, February Information. the State On Particulars, alleging aggra- filed a Bill of two (1) vating was circumstances: the murder avoiding purpose committed for prosecution; a lawful arrest or preventing (2) probability there that the existed of vio- would commit criminal acts defendant continuing that would constitute lence society. threat to 1991, 11, Tiger February On announced sought change plea. to his Before that he sworn, accepted the trial court Tiger’s guilty Amended plea of Second This was entered Information. blind the State for without recommendation punishment. After an exten- appropriate an hearing aggra- sentencing which both sive vating present- mitigating evidence were ed, found existence the trial court August On aggravating circumstances. two 29,1991 Tiger to die the trial court sentenced injection. by lethal ORDER GRANTING WRIT 12,1991 trial September court con- On OF CERTIORARI evidentiary hearing Tiger’s Ap- an ducted Petitioner, September On Guilty Plea of plication Withdraw Tiger, charged by Benjamin Thomas Hearing. Request Evidentiary The trial for Degree Afore- with First Malice Tiger’s application withdraw court denied Court of thought in the District Murder timely filed his guilty plea. Tiger has his County in On Mayes Case No. CRF-86-98. and Mandato- for of Certiorari Petition Writ 12, State filed an September 1986 the ry Imposition of Death Sentence Review on Degree alleging First Amended Information petition perfected his for Penalty and has Felony September, From Murder. of his and sen- certiorari review January 10, Tiger was incarcerated tence. committed in that Tennessee for murder he by Ti- proposition on De- raised Agreement We address one Tiger state. executed Agree- meritorious. ger the federal Interstate that we find tainers under Act.1 He waived extradi- ment on Detainers Mayes

tion under that Act stand TRIAL SUBJECT THE COURT’S County of Glen Rothenbush.2 for the murder MATTER JURISDICTION January Tiger was returned On error, Tiger al- proposition In his first County Mayes Jail to await trial Information leges Amended that the Second The examin- of Glen Rothenbush. the death by failing to rights his constitutional violated magistrate preliminary examination ing held constituting the elements 17-18,1991 state facts Tiger January and ordered felony 22,1991 murder infor- underlying January for trial. be bound over On brought the District Court mation. Tiger was before 111(e). seq. § art. § et.

1. 18 U.S.C.App. U.S.C.App. guilty plea nonjurisdic- A all prepared State, waives to meet. Miller v. 827 P.2d (Okl.Cr.1992); defects in the information. tional Frederick Plotner v. (Okl.Cr.1991). (Okl.Cr.1988); 811 P.2d On P.2d Nunley plea, guilty of a our (Okl.Cr.1983), certiorari review review 660 P.2d 1056 cert. de (1) nied, inquiries: 867, 104 205, is limited to two whether the S.Ct. 78 L.Ed.2d guilty plea knowingly (1983); State, Argo 107, was made and volun 179 v. 88 Okla.Crim. (2) (1948); tarily; 449, Burnett, and whether the district court P.2d 451 parte 200 Ex plea subject 147, accepting guilty matter 78 Okla.Crim. 145 P.2d 442-443 jurisdiction Id.; (1944). accept plea. King v. pres Because the information in the State, (Okl.Cr.1976); Boykin 553 P.2d 529 v. allege ent case did not all of the essential Alabama, 395 23 underlying felony U.S. of elements in what is (1969). Generally, 274 L.Ed.2d a trial court’s felony charge, intended to be a murder we jurisdiction upon jurisdiction par is based subject of find that the trial court lacked matter jurisdiction general subject ties and accept guilty to First Anderson, Application Degree Felony State, matter. P.2d 803 Murder. v. Pickens (Okl.Cr.1990). An 1163 State, information 678 Allen v. 874 P.2d every which does not recite to allege (Okl.Cr.1994); State, facts Miller v. (Okl.Cr.1992). charged essential element the crime fails P.2d Okl. Const. art. crime, charge II, § and therefore fails subject confer matter argu The State conceded at oral State, court. Miller v. 827 P.2d in present ment the information case (Okl.Cr.1992). charge Tiger intended to with Degree First The Second Amended Information al Felony O.S.1982, § Murder. 701.7.B. leged in charging language: Essentially, the alleged that Ti ger wilfully ... that THOMAS TIGER killed BENJAMIN Glen Rothenbush day July, during on or about 2nd wooden A.D. 1986 board course of first Mayes County, degree burglary. taking of Oklahoma and order for the Court, within the human felony of this did life the commission of a unlawfully, wilfully feloniously felony murder, constitute underlying and and felo authority ny independent without did must law effect the constitute an crime not ROTHENBUSH; resulting death one included within the GLEN homicide. Sul State, (Okl.Cr. being linger said defendant and then there en- 675 P.2d 1984); gaged committing attempting com- Tarter v. 359 P.2d 601-602 (Okl.Cr.1961). mit the crime of DE- The underly BURGLARY-FIRST elements of the ing felony GREE did kill the said felony GLEN ROTHEN- essential elements of board, BUSH with a murder. causing especially wooden mor- OUJI-CR 430. An tal body charge wounds in the said intended to GLEN defendant ROTHENBUSH, felony from which mortal with murder must recite facts to al every lege wounds the underlying felony. said GLEN ROTHENBUSH element of the languish die, (1994). contrary and form Pickens v. P.2d 678 In the present case, allege Statutes such cases and the information made does provided any of peace particular constituting and dignity Degree State. elements of First Burglary, the un derlying present case. A crimi sufficiency The test of the of an infor nal information which not allege all the parts: mation has two “essential elements” essential elements of the offense is and “notice.” two-prong test for deter insufficient, goes juris and the defect to the mining sufficiency of an information is diction of court and is not waivable. not whether might possibly the information (Okl.Cr. Harjo 797 P.2d certain, have been made more but whether 1990). II, § Okl. Const. art. (1) every it contains essential element of the (2) charged, sufficiently reasons, foregoing For the grant we certio- apprises the defendant of what he must be rari vacate the and sentence of that, authority to show ent additional to the trial whatev trial court. We remand may -with this er proceedings consistent for further information, that error is pled Petitioner’s order. “jurisdictional” in the sense word IT ORDERED. IS SO commonly regarding used Further, court. district JOHNSON, P.J., and LANE jurisdictional, can be—and is not because JJ., STRUBHAR, concur. ap here —waived for consideration upon entering knowing peal Petitioner’s CHAPEL, V.P.J., concurs in result. guilty charge. voluntary plea of LUMPKIN, J., dissents. LUMPKIN, dissenting: Judge, Legislature presume the had a We must initially by charged infor- Petitioner was for it did in placing as the statutes reason infor- September and the

mation on proce- governing pre-trial Title September on 1986. mation was amended Legislature did not intend the dure. The January again The information was amended provisions of Sections 401-413 notice Title guilty plea He a to that 1991. entered had, jurisdictional; if it 22 to be would 11,1991. February He amended information general provisions have included them August to death on was sentenced subscription, Chapter 4 of where Title plea, the sought He to withdraw his and verification of the infortoa- endorsement September application the on court denied required. Sections 301-304 of tion object to or 1991. Petitioner did not not, clear seems the Title Since sufficiency of complain of the the a Legislature intended them have differ- Court, despite the appealed until he to this provisions significance than the ent years he over to do so. fact had five the invoke the district court.1 in the Because I continue to believe argument!the can be a serious Nor there information, any, “jurisdictional,” if the is not juris- do have of this district courts State I waived the and because believe Petitioner properly an otherwise endorsed diction when I appeal, must to the Order dissent filed. The district courts of information is granting certiorari. “to this State are successors the jurisdic- all other courts” which earlier in I the action continue view Court’s proceedings “in civil matters original tion of (Okl. Miller v. 879-883 of state proceedings for the violation Cr.1992) V.P.J., (Lumpkin, whom John O.S.1991, § In short,¡the 91.1. statutes.” son, J., concurring in joins, part dissent 'our courts have because district disregard part) in a for ing as blatant act of say they do. laws statutory plain language language the do ^not I The earlier cases cited Miller Legislature. the enacted Oklahoma in situations where that. Even repeat cases cited there contradict shall not reversed, Rather, there was no mention my pres this Court support position. here person addition, to believe provisions mitted and sufficient cause In of Sections 251-269 words, procedure provide in Oklahoma charged of Title 22 evidence it. In committed be criminal which must utilized initiate offense must of each element charges court. Unlike federal in the district hearing magistrate presented in a where system, an a defendant is not afforded where charged right present! person a be has charges opportunity to know and understand opportunity witnesses and cross-examine ¡ allegations except him person can re evidence before bé indictment, charged person with a charge. quired See State v. to enter a given is first notice of Oklahoma (Okl.Cr. 1990). Berry, 799 P.2d then filed in the case and effect, requires procedure Oklahoma through prelimi at the the evidence prove court before person charged nary hearing. can Before required to defend offense, magistrate held to answer for the | charges. against the shows a crime was com must find the evidence that failure to list all the elements of crime 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962), (and jurisdictional the information constituted the Court addressed reversed on) deprived the trial defect which a proposition an indictment failed See, e.g., Fletcher v. inform a defendant as to nature of his (1909); 101 P. 599 v. Ter required specificity. Okl.Cr. Stout crime with Before ritory, merits, reaching 2 Okl.Cr. P. 375 the Court noted that 13 Okl.Cr. P. 331 Abrams each “[i]n case issue thus raised was (1916). Rather, “juris language invoking preserved appeal, petition for writ appeared vacuum, certiorari, diction” from with no argument and in brief and support in law or either the common sense. here.”

II. B.

A. simply But we need not that an infer infor- view This is one shared the United specific enough mation which is not is not Supreme States Court and can seen in jurisdictional. Williams, In United States States, early Coffey cases as as v. United 116 58, 595, 341 U.S. 71 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed. 747 436, 442, 437, 440, U.S. 6 29 L.Ed. 684 (1951), S.Ct. people four perjury were indicted (1886). There, raised, among a defendant testimony on at conspiracy based an earlier complaints, that the information was ultimately trial which appeal decided not sufficient and the court did not therefore to be based on a defective indictment. The subject matter The Court faulty Court held that where the indictment waived, complaint first the deemed as was statute, on a federal the federal court, “formally not raised in the circuit and jurisdiction district court subject had presented exceptions, aby matter; [was] not bill of testimony and that the false before Id., and cannot be considered here.” perjury, it under oath was notwithstanding 442, U.S. at S.Ct. at ultimately that it was appeal determined on 65-66, that indictment was defective. Id. at presents important points. This two One decision, reaching 71 S.Ct. at 599. In its the complaint is that the was waived for review jurisdiction Court noted power that the “is because the defendant answered the informa- justiciable controversy, decide and includes tion, and therefore must have known questions 66, of law as well as of fact.” Id. at specifics. That is discussed in detail in more (quoting Binderup at S.Ct. v. Pathe IV, part importance below. Of more to this Exchange, 291, 305, 96, 98, 263 U.S. 44 S.Ct. immediate is the discussion basic fact the (1923)). However, 68 L.Ed. 308 “[e]ven complaint Court considered the waived. unconstitutionality of the statute under which impliedly question This answers whether proceeding brought not is does oust a an information which jurisdiction.” court of Id.2 specificity required jurisdic- contain the is jurisdictional, complaint tional: were the is “[t]he It true that line is narrow and Court though would have considered it even wavering often pro- between errors it had been waived below. ceedings jurisdiction.” and lack Id. How- ever, Nor is this idea lost one over the decades. as plain, the Williams Court made States, v. Russell United “empowered U.S. where the court cogni- is to take (1923) noted, anyone. I do intend to mislead are There U.S. S.Ct. 68 L.Ed. 308 obviously instances where certain essential facts merits, "(jlurisdiction, distinguished as from is case, may lacking; in that the court would wanting only where claim set forth power have no to act. Id. at at 600 71 S.Ct. frivolous, complaint is so unsubstantial Co., (citing Logging Noble v. Union River R. or, words, plainly in other is without color of U.S. However, 13 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed. 123. Pathe, 305-06, merit.” 263 U.S. at 44 S.Ct. at said, as the Court existence As discussed in footnote the Oklahoma plainly necessary, appel- those are so that procedure charged greater affords with examples late Id. rare. As the discussion protections against potential than federal shows, below this is not one of those instances. procedure. Binderup Exchange, As the Court in v. Pathe

4H pleas Government's demurrers crime ... and decide issues zance of the statute,” Id., strike, problem lies the district court did its motions under that n court, think, not, as the court below seemed Instead, pleas. another area. held refuse act on the insufficient in law to were abate was also set forth Roche This view prosecution. ruling In thus the criminal 21, 26-27, Ass’n, Evaporated 319 U.S. Milk questions of law decisive of issue (1943), 938, 942, 87 L.Ed. 1185 63 S.Ct. by pleas replications determining the Court observed where district court acted within its extraordinary issue: writ should whether properly court to decide issues federal question no case involves [ T]he decision, brought Its if before it. even Its the district court. question on which we erroneous —a do persons defen pass judicial power, no abuse dants, subject —involved may have commit- error which indictment, questioned.... by the is by the circuit court of ted reviewable was returned Here the indictment appeal appropriately appeals upon taken duly requisite qualified grand number of from a final this Court jurors, acting under of the court order writ of certiorari. grand jury in continuing the session. objection matter of the Roche, at at 942 319 U.S.

indictment was not one which (citations omitted). Lane, also Goto or could be continued to hear was at 68 L.Ed. 265 U.S. S.Ct. which, irregularity proper if the most an Eckart, (1924)3; In re abatement, plea not of a in did 482-83, 484-85, 638, 638-39, S.Ct. jurisdiction court. affect the of the (1897).4 L.Ed. 1085 by a Nor does this case involve refusal adjudicate summary, In even if an information does prop- issues the district court to law, it, by sustaining specificity required ... contain the erly presented to In not held a class of cases it has been that trial court Where the Court said: possessing general jurisdiction of of class petitioners court which the were The circuit in is embraced the crime offenses within which undoubtedly jurisdic- had tried and convicted sought in is subject-matter persons, to be set forth the indictment tion and of their possessed authority imposed of to determine suffi- was not in excess of and the sentence and, indictment, power. ciency adjudging to its The offense neither an it of sufficient, impossible jurisdic- an law. colorless nor one under the acts within its be valid and indictment, put tion, The construction to be on the thereun- and a conviction given sufficiency its and the effect to be questioned corpus, der cannot be on habeas stipulation were all matters the determination certainty a lack or other defect in because of of primarily that court. If it of which rested in the indictment the statement them, determining judgment was erred its averred to constitute a crime.... ..., subject to not for that reason void but regular course writ of error. correction apply plea principle would to a of a The same presented applica- questions involved the If Clearly, former in these cases conviction. principles, tion constitutional that alone only jurisdiction try has and de- court not not alter rule. raised, imperative question is its cide duty to If court makes a mistake on do so. complaint by petitioner Involving that was a he trial, may is which be corrected such error knowing degree murder without convicted of errors; correcting by such modes of usual convicted, he of murder for which jurisdiction to the court had decide but that therefore, the court had no to sen- by plea, upon both as Court, the matter raised noting tence him. The after fact, law and of cannot doubted. matter of noting jurisdiction and that court had * * * always may It that it is not jurisdiction, confessed committed was "in the exercise of go very easy what to the jurisdictional to determine matters one a and defect," which does action, court, its so make noted: erroneous, general nullity. when But analogous principle to that of The case is by indictment, when court has rule that upon an trial and conviction charged, party offense and of law the are to be insuf- facts averred which asserted charged, judgments who is nulli- against so an the stat- ficient to constitute ties. ute claimed violated. go Coffey defrauded, that in and itself does to the the court infer that poses defraud, attempted the court. Whether it the United see, e.g. problem, Twining v. Due Process States. It is a sufficient answer to this 78, 112, Jersey, 211 New U.S. S.Ct. objection say that claimant in his (1908); Burke, Davis L.Ed. 97 U.S. answer denies the of the first 210, 212, 21 S.Ct. 45 L.Ed. 249 specifically, count are made. After Texas, Caldwell U.S. that, cannot, error, he in a court of on such (1891), S.Ct. 34 L.Ed. is an this, say a record as that heard he issue resolved the facts the individual made, charge did not know the and could case. it, although, not defend if he had count, excepted or demurred to the III. objection might have been conclusively prove This should Miller and consideration. labeling its ilk are incorrect the error Id. parte The same was true in Ex Con- complained jurisdictional. of here as To verse, 624, 630-31, 137 U.S. severely lacking have an information so (1891). There, 34 L.Ed. 796 in a habeas thing; fails to state an offense is one complaint that the charging information did clearly have one that states offense but allege an element of crime to which specificity contain the a de- pled guilty, he the Court noted the defendant entirely something fendant would like is else. pled guilty the crime embezzlement end, I To that would overrule the broad arraigned. important, when This was be- language being in those cases as inconsistent pleaded guilty embezzlement, cause “he legal precedent both with and common sense. undoubtedly understood when he made shows, As the discussion below would also pleading guilty his he was complaint hold appeal. was waived for felony charged.” This observation “was for- private required tified examination IV. judge statute to be made before sen- A. Id., tencing upon plea guilty.” at 11 S.Ct. at 193. The Court there- simply This is not an issue of semantic fore grant found no error on which to notes, habeas labeling. subject-mat- As this Order relief. time; any ter can at be raised if involving subject-matter

this is not issue B. jurisdiction, the issue can waived. The above discussion shows this does not involve Other courts have been even more subject-matter jurisdiction. question The straightforward in labeling complaint then becomes whether it can be waived. objected waived if it was not to below. In believe can. Pheaster, (9th United States v. F.2d above, raised, Coffey, a defendant Cir.1976), a defendant violating convicted of among complaints, that the information kidnapping objected appeal federal laws on was not sufficient the court did not because an to allege indictment failed jurisdiction. therefore have transport, element of interstate which made The complaint Court first deemed the crime fall under federal Al- waived, complaint not “formally as though the court noted failure of an indict- court, raised in the circuit pre- are not ment is a which any defect can raised at exceptions, sented a bill of and cannot be time, judicial economy required it added ob- Id., here.” considered 116 U.S. at 6 jections to the indictment be raised at S.Ct. at 440. It then added: not, possible untimely earliest time. If ob- however,

Assuming, point jections appeal as raised will not result here, can necessary appear be raised it is reversal “if count, urged that the first founded on form or fair construction be found section is insufficient because the within the terms of the indictment.” Id. at count set forth facts from which 361. is a There valid reason for this: “[s]uch good There is a reason for raising suggests a murder. long delay in the issue incorporating lacking. motivation of that: it is not It states Petitioner purely tactical appeal event ground engaged convenient killed his victim while crime against jury went defendant.” degree burglary. verdict Court of first The would reasoned, Furthermore, “the reverse, Id. notice, on lack of negate possibili delay tends to fact of degree burglary because the elements first a de prejudice preparation ty of Here, they laid need be. were not out. Czeck, Id. also United States v. fense.” applicable statutory provisions The state Cir.1982) (8th (“Where 1195, 1197 F.2d information must contain: the indictment or ques sufficiency of the information is action, specifying the 1. The title of the appeal, first time it will be tioned for the to which the indictment name of the court by no unless defective that found sufficient so presented, and the names or information is it be construction can said reasonable parties. charge the for which the defendants offense convicted”; clearly if it is sufficient were constituting A acts 2. statement ‘of sub “all the essential elements states offense, ordinary and concise lan- offense.”). stance’ guage, and in such manner enable understanding know person of common At least three state courts reached what intended. Puryear, See State v. similar conclusions. (1979) (Court Ark. O.S.1991, § reverse conviction because

refused The indictment or information must subtle, pre-trial motions were directed no regards: and certain direct indictment, and defendant had party charged. 1. The crime); Selley underlying actual notice of charged. (Fla.App.1980) 403 So.2d (even charging information did not though particular circumstances of the of- 3. The “against the will battery was state necessary charged, fense when victim,” be would not be reversed conviction complete offense. constitute a dismiss cause motion to defective O.S.1991, § alleged “specifically directed to the in an or infor- The words used indictment defect”; “unless an omission is waived such construed their usual mation must be wholly charge fails to the information language, except acceptation, in common Additionally, judge crime.” instructed law, phrases defined words and language.); omitted on the according legal to their are to be construed Fields, 128, 131, 132(Fla.App.1980) 390 So.2d meaning. (State appeal order trial court’s arresting judgment information for because O.S.1991, § 407. 22 specify not the crime which was burglary did or No indictment insuffi- committed; appeals court re intended to be trial, cient, or judgment, nor can the scrutiny, degree of applies lesser verses affected, reason proceedings thereon observing to label it would “anachronistic” imperfection in or or fa every pleading error as fundamental prejudice not tend which does form Batson, tal); Or.App. State v. rights the substantial defendant (1978) (Indictment at P.2d added) (Emphasis upon the merits. in specify did crime tempted burglary not O.S.1991, § 410. breaking and once tended to be committed entering completed; defendant because long ago held that common- This Court below, could object the indictment he of criminal doctrine of strict construction law appeal.). abrogated by raise it on proceedings and has laws statutes, liberally techni- which are V. State, 64 Okl.Cr. cally construed. Burks v. v. 79 P.2d 619 Williams Here, ob- at no time raised an Petitioner (1917). purpose The 167 P. charging him with Okl.Cr. jection to relating sufficiency sufficiency preliminary of statutes of indict of the information at hearing again im arraignment. ments and informations was eliminate at formal any objection repeal material from trials and to He failed to matters raise at time penal complain that a or common-law doctrine statute he aware of the nature construed, strictly charges should such stat filed that he was unable to equitable charges. utes established the doctrine of lib defend those He cannot complain “These eral construction. statutes have at this late date. special application to indictments and infor- innocent; A presumed defendant is he is away with

mations. It does the strict con presumed ignorant to be so he cannot placed pleadings, struction on those once comprehend meaning the common of words ordinary if a makes them sufficient every day English used language. understanding know what was intended This information states the crime with suffi- They place upon the terms used. clarity apprise cient him of the act he is duty courts the hold them sufficient unless alleged to have committed. It also sufficient- prejudice are so defective ly states violation state law to confer the rights upon of the defendant the merits of his Accordingly, it is not 138, 145, case.” Clark v. Okl.Cr. 73 fatally again defective. I will state once (1937). Furthermore, a strict Court should not antiquity reach back into statutory public of a definition offense is not and resurrect bones of pleading Code necessary in an information. Fulkerson many should have been laid to rest (1920). 17 Okl.Cr. 189 P. 1092 ago. decades allegations the information are respectfully dissent. Petitioner, plain: engaged while in the act of Degree Burglary, First killed his victim with me;

a wooden board. This seems clear to

certainly Petitioner, clear to seemed who

pled guilty gave a suffi-

cient factual for his crime. It basis was not

necessary underly- to list the elements of the States, ing felony. Thornton v. United Cf. CHEATHAM, Appellant, Charles Leon 70 L.Ed. (1926) (in charge conspiracy, “the pleading require rules criminal to not Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of degree same of detail an indictment for conspiracy stating object of the con- No. F-90-649. spiracy, as if charging it were one the sub- Appeals Court of Criminal of Oklahoma. offense.”). stantive June certainly agree

While I pro- would have vided more notice State’s Rehearing Aug. Denied the Petitioner to list the elements of first degree burglary, to do failure so here is not

fatal, especially when Petitioner waived

right complain about the

entering a knowing voluntary plea

guilty to it. consistent appli- This is with our

cation of waiver rights Constitutional Counsel and trial. To hold otherwise

would position be to to the adhere untenable presumed while a to know the

law, knowledge evaporates when ishe ease,

charged with a of it. violation

Appellant opportunity object

Case Details

Case Name: Tiger v. State

Court Name: Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Date Published: Aug 15, 1995

Citation: 900 P.2d 406

Docket Number: C-91-973

Court Abbreviation: Okla. Crim. App.