Okla. Stat. » Title 10 — CHILDREN
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112 (2026)

Renumbered as § 7303-4.3 of this title by Laws 1995, c

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

352, § 199, eff. July 1, 1995.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases, 1972–1996 · leading case: Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “The applicable statute concerning certification, 10 O.S.1971, § 1112, provided that a child charged with violation of a state statute or municipal ordinance should not be tried in a criminal action until properly certified.”
State Ex Rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 610 P.2d 256 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 6× “2d 84 (1966), and 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1112, with the exception of subsection (b), create a presumption of incompetence to stand trial on persons under 18.”
J. M. R. v. Moore, 610 P.2d 811 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “In April of 1976, the operative certification statute was 10 O.S.Supp. 1975, § 1112, which provided for the Juvenile Court to consider eight factors in determining whether a child charged with an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult should be retained within…”
State Ex Rel. Coats v. Johnson, 597 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “2d 84 (1966), and 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1112, with the exception of subsection (b), create a presumption of incompetence to stand trial in persons under 18.”
Schaffer v. Green, 496 P.2d 375 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). · cites it 8× “(2) All persons over the age of seven and under the age of 14, not certified in the manner prescribed by 10 O.S. § 1112 (b) as being capable of standing trial as an adult, shall be treated as a child, dependent child, or dependent and neglected child under the provisions of 10 O.”
Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “By so doing, we clarified 10 O.S.1971, § 1112, ¶ (b), which was not vague to the point of unconstitutionality, but in need of clarification to better implement it.”
Calhoon v. State, 548 P.2d 1037 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “JFJ-75-42, in which order the Juvenile Division of the District Court waived or relinquished its jurisdiction over the juvenile and certified him to stand trial in the trial division of said court for the alleged crime of Murder in the First Degree, as empowered by 10 O.S.Supp.…”
Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Defendant notes the eight guidelines for certification contained in 10 O.S.Supp. 1974, § 1112(b), which are emphasized in J.”
W.C.P. v. State, 791 P.2d 97 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “1985); 10 O.S.1981, § 1112. The record reflects that on September 25,1989, after an offer of proof and stipulation, prosecutive merit was found by the Court in JF-89-1923, JF-89-1924 and JF-89-1987.”
State v. Gray, 803 P.2d 718 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “Dreiling, Associate District Judge of Washington County, at the preliminary hearing: Can prior juvenile convictions for Driving and Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, under the traffic exception in Title 10 O.S.1981, § 1112, later be used…”
Sherfield v. State, 511 P.2d 598 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “In this appeal defendants claim the juvenile court certification process was defective and further claim the provisions of the Juvenile Act, 10 O.S. § 1112, providing for certification of juveniles for criminal prosecution as adults, is unconstitutional.”
Gonseth v. State, 871 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “in cases involving children wherein the child is charged with the violation of a state or municipal traffic law or ordinance.”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(B) — 1 case
Mason v. State, 868 P.2d 724 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(a) — 11 cases
Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “The applicable statute concerning certification, 10 O.S.1971, § 1112, provided that a child charged with violation of a state statute or municipal ordinance should not be tried in a criminal action until properly certified.”
State Ex Rel. Coats v. Johnson, 597 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “2d 84 (1966), and 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1112, with the exception of subsection (b), create a presumption of incompetence to stand trial in persons under 18.”
State v. Gray, 803 P.2d 718 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “Dreiling, Associate District Judge of Washington County, at the preliminary hearing: Can prior juvenile convictions for Driving and Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, under the traffic exception in Title 10 O.S.1981, § 1112, later be used…”
Gonseth v. State, 871 P.2d 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “in cases involving children wherein the child is charged with the violation of a state or municipal traffic law or ordinance.”
Calhoon v. State, 548 P.2d 1037 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). “JFJ-75-42, in which order the Juvenile Division of the District Court waived or relinquished its jurisdiction over the juvenile and certified him to stand trial in the trial division of said court for the alleged crime of Murder in the First Degree, as empowered by 10 O.S.Supp.…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(b) — 45 cases
State Ex Rel. Coats v. Rakestraw, 610 P.2d 256 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “2d 84 (1966), and 10 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1112, with the exception of subsection (b), create a presumption of incompetence to stand trial on persons under 18.”
Edwards v. State, 591 P.2d 313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “The applicable statute concerning certification, 10 O.S.1971, § 1112, provided that a child charged with violation of a state statute or municipal ordinance should not be tried in a criminal action until properly certified.”
Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). “Defendant notes the eight guidelines for certification contained in 10 O.S.Supp. 1974, § 1112(b), which are emphasized in J.”
J. M. R. v. Moore, 610 P.2d 811 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “In April of 1976, the operative certification statute was 10 O.S.Supp. 1975, § 1112, which provided for the Juvenile Court to consider eight factors in determining whether a child charged with an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult should be retained within…”
C. S. M. v. State, 599 P.2d 426 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(b)(4) — 1 case
K.C.H. v. State, 674 P.2d 551 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(c) — 1 case
T. F. M. v. State, 572 P.2d 280 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(d) — 1 case
A.T. v. State, 773 P.2d 755 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 1112(e) — 5 cases
W.D.C. v. State, 799 P.2d 142 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
K.V.F. v. State, 805 P.2d 106 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
M.L.S. v. State, 805 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
KVF v. State, 805 P.2d 106 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
MLS v. State, 805 P.2d 665 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.