Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2103 (2026)

Scope of rules

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

A. Except as otherwise provided in subsection B of this section, this Code shall apply in both criminal and civil proceedings, conducted by or under the supervision of a court, in which evidence is produced. B. The rules set forth in this Code, other than those applicable to a valid claim of privilege, do not apply in the following situations: 1. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the judge under subsection A of Section 2105 of this title; and

2. Proceedings for extradition or rendition; sentencing or granting or revoking probation; advancement of deferred judgment; issuance of warrants for arrest, criminal summonses and search warrants; proceedings with respect to release on bail or otherwise; and juvenile emergency show-cause hearings. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 103, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 240, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 24, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Hunsucker v. Fallin, 2017 OK 100 (Okla. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunsucker v. Fallin, 2017 OK 100 (Okla. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 2023(B) (listing the kinds of cases appropriate for class-action treatment); 12 O.S.2011 § 2103 (listing the tribunals and decisions to which the rules of evidence apply); 20 O.”
Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Thus, a probationer's right to confront witnesses against him in a revocation hearing clearly is not as stringent as a defendant's right to confront witnesses during a criminal trial prosecution.”
Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “[14] The reference to hearsay statements contained in this statement forces us to examine to what extent they are admissible in the punishment stage of a capital proceeding.”
Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “at 2280 ; 12 O.S.2011, § 2103(B)(1). Such a hearing should also address any other issues relevant to the statements, e.”
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 2103. In enacting the Code the Legislature made several changes to existing law.”
Hampton v. State, 2009 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “" Oklahoma's corresponding provision is found at 12 O.S.Supp.2008, § 2103(B)(2). With the exception of Kansas, the rules of evidence in all other states situated in the Tenth Circuit have similar exclusionary provisions.”
Pavatt v. State, 2007 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). “12 O.S.2001, § 2103(B)(1); Lee v. State, 1983 OK CR 41 , ś 6, 661 P.”
In Re Est. of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90 (Okla. 2002). “” 12 O.S.2001 § 2103. With the enactment of the Oklahoma Pleading Code in 1984, 12 O.”
Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881 (Okla. 1994). “Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2103. 3 Under Section 2404(B), character evidence is dealt with through the application of a specialized relevancy inquiry.”
State v. Freeman, 276 S.E.2d 450 (N.C. 1981). “1979); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, §§ 2103 , 2501, 2504 (West 1980); S.”
Lee v. State, 661 P.2d 1345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “We first observe that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant upon facts communicated to him by others. Howell v.”
Wade v. State, 624 P.2d 86 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “He reasons that though the documents be sufficiently authenticated under the self-authentication provision of the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2103(B): 1 case
Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). “Thus, a probationer's right to confront witnesses against him in a revocation hearing clearly is not as stringent as a defendant's right to confront witnesses during a criminal trial prosecution.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2103(B)(1): 5 cases
Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “at 2280 ; 12 O.S.2011, § 2103(B)(1). Such a hearing should also address any other issues relevant to the statements, e.”
Pavatt v. State, 2007 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). “12 O.S.2001, § 2103(B)(1); Lee v. State, 1983 OK CR 41 , ś 6, 661 P.”
Lee v. State, 661 P.2d 1345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “We first observe that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant upon facts communicated to him by others. Howell v.”
Brewer v. State, 2019 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2103(B)(2): 5 cases
Wortham v. State, 2008 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). “Thus, a probationer's right to confront witnesses against him in a revocation hearing clearly is not as stringent as a defendant's right to confront witnesses during a criminal trial prosecution.”
Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “[14] The reference to hearsay statements contained in this statement forces us to examine to what extent they are admissible in the punishment stage of a capital proceeding.”
Hampton v. State, 2009 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “" Oklahoma's corresponding provision is found at 12 O.S.Supp.2008, § 2103(B)(2). With the exception of Kansas, the rules of evidence in all other states situated in the Tenth Circuit have similar exclusionary provisions.”
Gilbert v. State, 765 P.2d 807 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Hunter v. State, 825 P.2d 1353 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
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.