Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Oklahoma law is instructive. Sullinger v. State, 1984 OK CR 44, ¶ 3, 675 P.2d 472, 473. The merger doctrine is a historical feature of case law, and is not based on any statutory or constitutional text. Quillen v. State, 2007 OK CR 22, 163 P.3d 587, ¶ 4, at 589. Courts 'have generally declined to hold that the merger doctrine implicates any principle of constitutional law.' State v. Godsey, 60 S.W.3d 759, 774 (Tenn. 2001). The merger doctrine is entirely separate from the principle of merger of offenses under the constitutional prohibition against multiple punishments for the 'same offense' under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Perry v. State, 1993 OK CR 5, ¶ 7, 853 P.2d 198, 200-01 (convictions for both felony murder and underlying felony violate prohibition against double jeopardy). The Court in Quillen recently reaffirmed its adherence to the merger doctrine as it 'has been applied in Oklahoma for many years,' first being mentioned in Jewell v. Territory, 4 Okla. 53, 43 P. 1075 (Okla. 1896), and 'a part of Oklahoma's jurisprudence ever since.' Quillen, ...

Register or login to access full content