Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104 (2026)

Rulings on evidence

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected, and: 1. If the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or 2. If the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. B. The court may add any statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form. C. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being presented to the jury by any means, including making statements or offers of proof or asking questions within the hearing of the jury. D. Nothing in this section precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 104, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 129 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “plain error; (2) The concept of fundamental error is now codified in the Oklahoma Evidence Code 12 O.S.1981, § 2104, and shall hereafter be referred to as plain error; (3) Plain error only allows review of an error on appeal which was not preserved through a timely objection at…”

Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “12 O.S.2001, § 2104. Here, one of the aggravating circumstances alleged was that Williams created a great risk of death to more than one person.”

Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (Okla. 2003). · cites it 2× “12 O.S. § 2104; Wofford v. Lewis, supra. In our ease today, we conclude that upon Defendants’ specific challenge to Plaintiffs’ expert on the basis of general causation, Plaintiffs had a burden of either showing general causation or showing that general causation is not…”

Munson v. State, 758 P.2d 324 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The trial court instructed the jury on first degree malice aforethought murder, and first degree felony-murder based on the underlying felonies of kidnapping and armed robbery.”

Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48 (Okla. 2005). · cites it 2× “Title 12 O.S.2001, § 2104(A) provides, "[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected[.”

Jones v. State, 772 P.2d 922 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “Appellant first claims the trial court erred in four instances by allowing Detective Hill to testify to matters outside his personal knowledge contrary to 12 O.”

Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104. We find no plain error.”

Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 690, 694-95 ; 12 O.S.2001, § 2104(A)2) ("If the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”

Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “As correctly noted by the majority, however, the error was not preserved at trial with a timely specific objection as required by 12 O.S.1981, § 2104(A)(1). Therefore, the issue becomes whether this error arises to the level of fundamental or plain error affecting substantial…”

Mann v. State, 749 P.2d 1151 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “The witness was one of the police officers who transported appellant from Eufaula where he was arrested back to Chickasha.”

Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “12 O.S.2001, § 2104. We review Appellant's challenges to the District Court's rulings with these principles in mind.”

In the Matter of K. H., 2021 OK 33 (Okla. 2021). · cites it 3× “12 O.S.2011 § 2104(A)(1). ¶26 Parents have a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in the continuity of the legal bond with their children.”

Show all 129 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(A) — 24 cases

Badillo v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 2005 OK 48 (Okla. 2005). “Title 12 O.S.2001, § 2104(A) provides, "[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected[.”

Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “2d 690, 694-95 ; 12 O.S.2001, § 2104(A)2) ("If the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”

Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (Okla. 2003). “12 O.S. § 2104; Wofford v. Lewis, supra. In our ease today, we conclude that upon Defendants’ specific challenge to Plaintiffs’ expert on the basis of general causation, Plaintiffs had a burden of either showing general causation or showing that general causation is not…”

Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “See 12 O.S.1991, § 2104. We find no plain error.”

Salazar v. State, 1998 OK CR 70 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(A)(1) — 37 cases

In the Matter of K. H., 2021 OK 33 (Okla. 2021). “12 O.S.2011 § 2104(A)(1). ¶26 Parents have a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in the continuity of the legal bond with their children.”

Moore v. State, 788 P.2d 387 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).

Beets v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 1999 OK 15 (Okla. 2011).

Munson v. State, 758 P.2d 324 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “The trial court instructed the jury on first degree malice aforethought murder, and first degree felony-murder based on the underlying felonies of kidnapping and armed robbery.”

Abshier v. State, 2001 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(A)(2) — 17 cases

Hammon v. State, 2000 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).

Faulkenberry v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 661 P.2d 510 (Okla. 1983).

Dutton v. State, 674 P.2d 1134 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

Woods v. Fruehauf Trailer Corp., 765 P.2d 770 (Okla. 1989).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(A)(l) — 1 case

Stemple v. State, 2000 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(C) — 4 cases

Ashton v. State, 400 P.3d 887 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).

Battenfield v. State, 816 P.2d 555 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).

Ashton v. State, 2017 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).

Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Energy Conservation Eng'g, Inc., 745 P.2d 1200 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2104(D) — 14 cases

Simpson v. State, 876 P.2d 690 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “plain error; (2) The concept of fundamental error is now codified in the Oklahoma Evidence Code 12 O.S.1981, § 2104, and shall hereafter be referred to as plain error; (3) Plain error only allows review of an error on appeal which was not preserved through a timely objection at…”

Jones v. State, 772 P.2d 922 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “Appellant first claims the trial court erred in four instances by allowing Detective Hill to testify to matters outside his personal knowledge contrary to 12 O.”

Primeaux v. State, 2004 OK CR 16 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).

Rojem v. State, 753 P.2d 359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “As correctly noted by the majority, however, the error was not preserved at trial with a timely specific objection as required by 12 O.S.1981, § 2104(A)(1). Therefore, the issue becomes whether this error arises to the level of fundamental or plain error affecting substantial…”

Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).

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.