Fryar v. State

30 Citing cases

  1. Cales v. State

    648 P.2d 838 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982)   Cited 4 times

    (emphasis added). Further, it is the well established rule in Oklahoma that a mere assertion of error on the part of the trial court without citing authority in support of the contention is insufficient to raise the issue for consideration by the reviewing court. Medina v. State, 606 P.2d 597 (Okla. Cr. 1980); Fryar v. State, 385 P.2d 818 (Okla. Cr. 1963); Klein v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 350, 176 P. 414 (1918). This Court will review the record to determine whether the appellant was deprived of any fundamental rights.

  2. Tabor v. State

    582 P.2d 1323 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 14 times
    In Tabor v. State, 582 P.2d 1323 (Okla.Crim.App. 1978), the jury foreman advised the court that there was uncertainty as to the exact wording of one of the witness's testimony and requested that it be read to them.

    This Court has often held that it is necessary for counsel for defendant not only to assert error but to support his contentions by both arguments and citations of authority, and where this is not done and it is apparent that the defendant has been deprived of no fundamental right, this Court will not search the books for authority to support the mere assertion that the trial court erred. Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818 (1963). For the reasons set out above this assignment of error is without merit.

  3. Reed v. State

    580 P.2d 159 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978)   Cited 13 times
    In Reed v. State, 580 P.2d 159 (Okla. Cr. 1978), this Court held that when the defendant under oath confesses the former conviction, there is no question of fact within the jury's province as to whether the defendant is guilty of only the primary offense or of the preliminary offense after former conviction.

    However, the defendant submits no authority in support of his contention. As stated in Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818 (1963), it is necessary for counsel for the defendant not only to assert error but also to support his contentions by both arguments and citations of authority. When this is not done, and it is apparent that the defendant has been deprived of no fundamental right, this Court will not search the books for authority to support the mere assertion of error.

  4. Smith v. State

    562 P.2d 909 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    Where this is not done and it is apparent that defendant has been deprived of no fundamental rights this Court will not search the books for authority to support the mere assertion that the trial court erred. Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818. From an examination of the record we do not find the questions to be fundamentally prejudicial to the defendant, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The defense next complains that the prosecutor erred when he directed a question to the entire jury panel instead of to the prospective jurors seated in the jury box.

  5. Johnson v. State

    556 P.2d 1285 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 36 times
    In Johnson v. State, 556 P.2d 1285 (Okla. Cr. 1976), we held, citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the accused the personal right to make his own defense without the assistance of counsel. It is not the wisdom of the decision that determines whether the accused intelligently elected to represent himself; but rather knowledge or adequate warning concerning his right and a clear intent to exercise it. Cole v. State, 569 P.2d 470 (Okla. Cr. 1977).

    "` It is necessary for counsel for plaintiff in error not only to assert error, but to support his contentions by both argument and the citation of authorities. Where this is not done, and it is apparent that the defendant has been deprived of no fundamental rights, this court will not search the books for authorities to support the mere assertion that the trial court has erred.' Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818." (Emphasis added)

  6. Asher v. State

    546 P.2d 1343 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    He cites no statutes or cases in support of this contention. In the case of Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818 (1963), this Court stated in the third paragraph of the Syllabus that: "It is necessary for counsel for plaintiff in error not only to assert error, but to support his contentions by both argument and the citation of authorities.

  7. Edmondson v. State

    527 P.2d 190 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 5 times

    (emphasis added) See also, Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818 (1963). Defendant's reliance on the case of Martin v. State, 34 Okla. Cr. 274, 246 P. 647 (1926), is obviously misplaced as there the affidavit executed by the prosecuting witness set forth in full the true facts which would have been shown upon a new trial of the cause.

  8. Day v. State

    518 P.2d 1283 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974)   Cited 4 times

    Where this is not done, and it is apparent that defendant has been deprived of no fundamental rights, this Court will not search the books for authority to support a mere assertion that the trial court was erroneous. Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818; Wright v. State, Okla. Cr. 500 P.2d 582. Therefore, for all the reasons set out above, the defendant's first proposition in error is without merit.

  9. Suggs v. State

    509 P.2d 1374 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973)   Cited 2 times
    Allowing jurors to view place of offense is within discretion of district court and is governed by 22 O.S., ยง 851

    Where this is not done and it is apparent that no fundamental error has occurred, this Court will not search the books for authority to support the mere assertion that the trial court erred. Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818. Defendant's last contention is, therefore, without merit. From a consideration of the record as a whole, we do not find that defendant has been deprived of any substantial rights, but that the issues were fairly presented to a jury, and that defendant received a fair and impartial trial.

  10. Moulton v. State

    476 P.2d 366 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970)   Cited 45 times
    In Moulton v. State, Okla. Cr. 476 P.2d 366 (1970), this Court would not consider the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in not sustaining his motion to quash and dismiss the preliminary hearing where a copy of the transcript of the preliminary hearing was not filed in this Court.

    This Court has repeatedly held that a matter assigned as error, in the Motion for New Trial and in the Petition in Error, but not shown in the case made, will not be considered by this Court. See Pettigrew v. State, Okla. Cr. 430 P.2d 808 and Fryar v. State, Okla. Cr. 385 P.2d 818. We therefore must deny this proposition of error.