Skip to main content

Barnard v. State

Citations

  • 290 P.3d 759
  • 2012 OK CR 15
  • 2012 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 12
  • 2012 WL 5356320

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • because Section 11 complements the double jeopardy protections of the Oklahoma and United States Constitutions, a traditional double jeopardy analysis is conducted only if Section 11 does not apply
  • “[E]ven though we review for plain error, rather than [preserved] error, the harmless error doctrine of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967
  • legislative intent is key to double-punishment analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Johnson, Lewis, Lumpkin, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.