Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, APPELLANT, v. MICHAEL D. CONAUGHTY, APPELLEE.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

This is an attempted appeal from an order entered by the District Court, Oklahoma County, sustaining a motion to suppress in Case No. CRM-75-613, wherein Michael D. Conaughty is charged with Exhibiting Obscene Movies. However meritorious the State's position may be, no appeal can lie from an order entered by the trial court sustaining a motion to suppress, for the reasons set forth in State v. Robinson (No. 0-75-415), Okla. Cr. 544 P.2d 545.

In State v. Robinson, supra, we cited with approval the decision of State v. Smith, 30 Okla. Cr. 144, 235 P. 273 (1925). If the State wishes to appeal on a reserved question of law under the provisions of 22 O.S. 1971 § 1053[ 22-1053], ¶ 3, they should proceed to trial before a jury, or the court if both parties agree to a waiver of trial by jury, and if the Appellee is acquitted, the State may appeal on a question reserved by the State.

For all of the reasons set forth in State v. Robinson, supra, we are of the opinion that the attempted appeal on a question of law reserved by the State is not properly before us, and the same is hereby, dismissed. The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate forthwith.

BRETT, P.J., and BLISS, J., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. CONAUGHTY
(Dec 18, 1975)