A. Preliminary questions concerning the qualifications of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsections B and C of this section. B. A person claiming a privilege must prove that the conditions prerequisite to the existence of the privilege are more probably true than not. A person claiming an exception to a privilege must prove that the conditions prerequisite to the applicability of the exception are more probably true than not. If there is a factual basis to support a good faith belief that a review of the allegedly privileged material is necessary, the court, in making its determination, may review the material outside the presence of any other person.
C. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. D. Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall be conducted in all cases out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall also be conducted out of the hearing of the jury when the interests of justice require or when requested by an accused who is a witness. E. The accused does not subject himself to cross-examination on other issues in the case by testifying upon a preliminary matter. F. This section does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 105, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 25, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (Okla. 2003).
Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Preliminary questions concerning the qualifications of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsections B and C of this section.”
Pennington v. State, 913 P.2d 1356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “He argues further, that there was no self-authenticating information on the documents nor did this evidence meet the requirements of the Oklahoma Evidence Code.”
In Re Est. of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90 (Okla. 2002).
“See the terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 2105(A), which provide: "Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsection B of…”
White v. State, 437 P.3d 1061 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“12 O.S.2011, § 2105(A). Hence they are usually considered before trial, or at in camera hearings during trial, and involve issues that are not always developed at the trial itself.”
Gabus v. Harvey, 678 P.2d 253 (Okla. 1984).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2105, and that decision will not be overturned by this Court absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “12 O.S.2011, § 2105(A). Hence they are usually considered before trial, or at in camera hearings during trial, and involve issues that are not always developed at the trial itself.”
Lee v. State, 661 P.2d 1345 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“The judge was obviously satisfied that each was telling the truth, and for that reason he exercised the discretion conferred upon him under 12 O.S.1981, § 2105, to respect the informant’s privilege.”
Harjo v. State, 797 P.2d 338 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“” However, we believe “that no change in substance was effected by this amendment.”
Champeau v. State, 678 P.2d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2105(A) and (B). We find sufficient evidence to support the admission of the photographs.”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“” 12 O.S.1981, § 2105(B). Therefore, a necessary condition or prerequisite for the admission of the demonstrative evidence is proper authentication or identification.”
New v. State, 760 P.2d 833 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
“The requirement of authentication is initially a preliminary question for the trial judge as a matter of conditional relevance under 12 O.S.1981, § 2105(B), and “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it…”
Romani v. State, 528 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
“The commentary following the Oklahoma rule, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 § 2105, refers the reader to section 2103 which is the equivalent to Federal Rule 1101.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2105(A) — 5 cases
In Re Est. of Holcomb, 2002 OK 90 (Okla. 2002).
“See the terms of 12 O.S.2001 § 2105(A), which provide: "Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subsection B of…”
White v. State, 437 P.3d 1061 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“12 O.S.2011, § 2105(A). Hence they are usually considered before trial, or at in camera hearings during trial, and involve issues that are not always developed at the trial itself.”
White v. State, 2019 OK CR 2 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“12 O.S.2011, § 2105(A). Hence they are usually considered before trial, or at in camera hearings during trial, and involve issues that are not always developed at the trial itself.”
Harjo v. State, 797 P.2d 338 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
“” However, we believe “that no change in substance was effected by this amendment.”
Champeau v. State, 678 P.2d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“12 O.S.1981, § 2105(A) and (B). We find sufficient evidence to support the admission of the photographs.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2105(B) — 4 cases
Pennington v. State, 913 P.2d 1356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
“He argues further, that there was no self-authenticating information on the documents nor did this evidence meet the requirements of the Oklahoma Evidence Code.”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“” 12 O.S.1981, § 2105(B). Therefore, a necessary condition or prerequisite for the admission of the demonstrative evidence is proper authentication or identification.”
New v. State, 760 P.2d 833 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
“The requirement of authentication is initially a preliminary question for the trial judge as a matter of conditional relevance under 12 O.S.1981, § 2105(B), and “is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims it…”
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.