Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404 (2026)

Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct -

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Exceptions - Other crimes. A. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except: 1. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same; 2. Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor; or 3. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in Sections 2607, 2608 and 2609 of this Code. B. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 404, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1991, c. 62, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 194 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “The video of the interview was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

Burks v. State, 594 P.2d 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 6× “It is obvious that what Burks has done is further delineate and clarify the constitutional application of 12 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 2404, ¶ B, which is statutory enactment of common law.”

NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “According to the State, the trial court's decision to allow evidence of the prior break-in under the common scheme and plan exception was correct because the two crimes are factually similar thereby making the Hofmann evidence probative of Neloms's identity as the perpetrator of…”

Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “See 12 O.S.2001, § 2404. Specific instances of conduct to prove a person's character or a trait of character are admissible when the character is part of a claim or defense.”

Wall v. State, 2020 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). · cites it 16× “The trial court admitted the evidence under the identity exception to the rule against admission of other crimes evidence under 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B). Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence was improperly admitted as it does not prove his identity as the operator of the…”

Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues admission of this evidence violated the prohibition on admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B). Appellant's objections at trial have properly preserved this issue for appellate review.”

Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Although admissions by conduct do not always constitute evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts, see 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B), the two often overlap.”

Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “The State argued the impeachment evidence was proper under 12 O.S.1991, §§ 2404, 2405 and 2608 to show that Appellant was lying when he said he was not a violent person.”

Dunkle v. State, 2006 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “The admission of character evidence is governed by 12 O.S.2001, § 2404. The evidence in this case did not fall under one of the well established exceptions for admissibility.”

Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “At the hearing, the prosecutor argued the evidence was admissible under 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B) and 12 O.S.Supp.2007, § 2413(A).”

Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Because trial courts and counsel look to this Court for guidance on evidentiary issues, I believe the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing merits additional discussion.”

Tansy v. Dacomed Corp., 890 P.2d 881 (Okla. 1994). · cites it 5× “*891 Title 12 O.S.1991 § 2404 provides that evidence of a person’s character is not admissible in evidence except when a criminal defendant puts his character in issue; as evidence by an accused in a criminal case, or by the prosecution to show either aggressiveness or…”

Show all 194 citing cases →

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(A) — 5 cases

Dunkle v. State, 2006 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “The admission of character evidence is governed by 12 O.S.2001, § 2404. The evidence in this case did not fall under one of the well established exceptions for admissibility.”

Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).

Cipriano v. State, 2001 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).

Scott v. State, 649 P.2d 560 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).

Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(A)(1) — 10 cases

Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).

Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “The State argued the impeachment evidence was proper under 12 O.S.1991, §§ 2404, 2405 and 2608 to show that Appellant was lying when he said he was not a violent person.”

Marquez-Burrola v. State, 2007 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).

Wilkett v. State, 674 P.2d 573 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

Thomas v. State, 741 P.2d 482 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(A)(2) — 9 cases

Bechtel v. State, 840 P.2d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).

Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).

Duvall v. State, 825 P.2d 621 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).

Allen v. State, 871 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Cole v. State, 634 P.2d 1313 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(A)(3) — 1 case

Martinez v. State, 1999 OK CR 33 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(B) — 140 cases

Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “The video of the interview was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”

NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012). “According to the State, the trial court's decision to allow evidence of the prior break-in under the common scheme and plan exception was correct because the two crimes are factually similar thereby making the Hofmann evidence probative of Neloms's identity as the perpetrator of…”

Wall v. State, 2020 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). “The trial court admitted the evidence under the identity exception to the rule against admission of other crimes evidence under 12 O.S.2011, § 2404(B). Appellant argues on appeal that the evidence was improperly admitted as it does not prove his identity as the operator of the…”

Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “Appellant argues admission of this evidence violated the prohibition on admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B). Appellant's objections at trial have properly preserved this issue for appellate review.”

Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). “Although admissions by conduct do not always constitute evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts, see 12 O.S.2001, § 2404(B), the two often overlap.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2404(b) — 2 cases

Owens v. State, 2010 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).

Myers v. State, 2000 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).

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.