Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2402 (2026)
Relevant evidence generally admissible - Irrelevant
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
evidence inadmissible. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, by statute or by this Code. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 402, eff. Oct. 1, 1978.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: In the Matter of K. H., 2021 OK 33 (Okla. 2021).
In the Matter of K. H., 2021 OK 33 (Okla. 2021). “12 O.S. 2011 § 2402. ¶33 The trial court instructed the jury that to terminate parental rights based on heinous and shocking abuse State is required to prove the following four elements by clear and convincing evidence: 17 1) The child has been adjudicated deprived; 2) The…”
Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “By this language, the Legislature clearly intended relevant propensity evidence to be treated as any other relevant evidence and thus subject to the weighing of its probative value versus its prejudice as set forth in 12 O.S.2001, §§ 2402 and 2403. [2] With the safeguards put in…”
Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “The trial court's ruling, that it was important that the jurors see Bramlett's demeanor during the interview to determine whether his statement was voluntary or the product of coercion, was not an abuse of discretion.”
Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “¶17 Kent's testimony about the recordings of Appellant's jail conversations also garnered no objection by defense counsel, thus we review for plain error only.”
Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2015). “Under § 2404(B), § 2609(B), or the rule governing admissibility of relevant evidence ( Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2402 ), the state district court would have needed to weigh the probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice.”
Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “12 O.S.1981, § 2402. Furthermore, even if the presence and influence of satanism in the Oklahoma City metropolitan area were a fact of consequence, appellant was able to demonstrate that fact through several other witnesses who testified concerning satanism in the area and…”
Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “See 12 O.S.1991, § 2402. Therefore, it was properly admitted.”
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “Hooper claims Blanton's comments were irrelevant under 12 O.S.1991, § 2402, and, if relevant, were more prejudicial than probative.”
Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “[61] 12 O.S.1991, §§ 2402, 2403. [62] 12 O.S.1991, § 2602.”
Fairchild v. State, 1999 OK CR 49 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “12 O.S.1991, § 2402. ¶ 67 Appellant objected at trial and on appeal (Proposition V) to the introduction of State's Exhibit # 83, a color autopsy photograph taken of the inside of Adam's skullcap lying on a blue cloth background.”
Lambert v. State, 2005 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005). “[32] The witnesses included the two victims, who were allowed to testify at length to specific details of the crimes, including holding them against their will, physical violence, and crimes committed upon their bodies.”
Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “Appellant argues that the evidence that he suffered from PTSD was relevant to the issue of his intent at the time of the offense.”
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.