White v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Simmons v. State

    98 P.2d 623 (Okla. Crim. App. 1940)   Cited 7 times

    Since the witness, Dodson, was under no legal obligation to attend under the subpoena which had been served upon him, he was not subject to attachment, and the issuance of said attachment by the court would have been unauthorized. In the case of White v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 442, 132 P. 381, 382, we said: "A defendant should not wait until his case is called for trial before he asks for an order of court to command the attendance of a witness resident in another county of the state.

  2. La Coss v. State

    219 P. 416 (Okla. Crim. App. 1923)   Cited 5 times

    It has been repeatedly held by this court that motions for continuance are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the judgment will not be set aside for a failure to grant a continuance unless a manifest abuse of discretion appears. Reed v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 651, 174 P. 800; White v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 442, 132 P. 381; Tucker v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 587, 132 P. 825. The defendant was a poor person, and on the 6th day of July, 1921, the court appointed W.B. Merrill and J.G. Clift as attorneys to defend him in this prosecution.

  3. Fisher v. State

    196 P. 724 (Okla. Crim. App. 1921)   Cited 6 times

    This court will not reverse a judgment of conviction because the trial court overruled such a motion, unless a manifest abuse of discretion appears. The previous holdings of this court are uniform to this effect, among which are the following: Reed v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 651, 174 P. 800; Brewer v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 514, 165 P. 634; White v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 442, 132 P. 381. We think it is apparent from defendant's affidavit in support of this motion that due diligence is not shown in attempting to obtain the attendance of the absent witnesses.

  4. Carnes v. State

    179 P. 475 (Okla. Crim. App. 1918)   Cited 9 times
    In Carnes v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 585, 179 P. 475, 478, citing Price v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 364, 98 P. 450, it is stated that "as to what constitutes res gestae is possibly the most complex and difficult question in criminal law."

    Under the showing made, the motion for a continuance being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, we cannot say that there was such an abuse of discretion in this instance in the refusal to grant a continuance as would authorize the reversal of this judgment. Davis v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 169, 135 P. 438; Sayers v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 233, 136 P. 1073; White v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 442, 132 P. 381; Tucker v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 587, 132 P. 835; Edwards v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 306, 131 P. 956; Cox v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 378, 131 P. 1109. It is also contended that the court erred in admitting as a deposition part of the testimony of the deceased witness Jacob Frazier, reduced to writing at the preliminary examination and signed by said witness.