admissible - Definitions. A. In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. B. In a case in which the state intends to offer evidence under this rule, the attorney for the state shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen (15) days before the scheduled date of trial or at such later time as the court may allow for good cause. C. This rule shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other rule. D. For purposes of this rule, "child" means a person below the age of sixteen (16), and "offense of child molestation" means a crime under federal law or the laws of this state that involve: 1. Any conduct proscribed by Sections 1111 through 1125 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, that was committed in relation to a child; 2. Contact between any part of the defendant's body or an object and the genitals or anus of a child; 3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the defendant and any part of the body of a child; 4. Deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, emotional distress, or physical pain on a child; or 5. An attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection. Added by Laws 2007, c. 76, § 2, emerg. eff. April 30, 2007. Amended by Laws 2008, c. 347, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case:
Perez v. State, 525 P.3d 46 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
Perez v. State, 525 P.3d 46 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “, 2022 OK CR 25 ¶4 The challenged evidence here met all of the factors required for admissibility under 12 O.S.2011, § 2414 Horn v. State , 2009 OK CR 7 204 P.”
Williams v. State, 2021 OK CR 19, 496 P.3d 621.
· cites it 3× “The child sexual propensity evidence met all of the factors required for admissibility under 12 O.S.2011, § 2414. The probative value of this evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.”
James v. State, 2009 OK CR 8, 204 P.3d 793.
· cites it 3× “'s claim of sexual abuse, pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2007, § 2414, violated his constitutional protection from ex post facto laws, because that statute was enacted after the alleged commission of the offenses against B.”
NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, 274 P.3d 161.
“12 O.S.Supp.2007, § 2414(A) (emphasis added).”
Horn v. State, 2009 OK CR 7, 204 P.3d 777.
“NOTES [1] Title 12 O.S.Supp.2007, § 2414 is the same as § 2413 except that it pertains to the admissibility of evidence of other acts of child molestation in cases in which the defendant is accused of child molestation.”
Taylor v. Martin, No. 6:16-cv-00462 (E.D. Okla. Mar. 12, 2020).
· cites it 4× “The OCCA found no merit in Petitioner’s claim: In Proposition Three, Appellant contends the trial court erroneously admitted sexual propensity evidence without the fifteen (15) day notice required by 12 O.S.2011, § 2414. The State points out that its discovery notice directly…”
Robinson v. Martin, No. 4:19-cv-00107 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2023).
· cites it 4× “§ 2414 Robinson next argues the Oklahoma statute permitting admission of propensity evidence in child abuse cases, 12 O.S. § 2414, is unconstitutional. That section states “in a … child molestation [case], evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of…”
Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1.
· cites it 2× “, 2022 OK CR 25 ¶4 The challenged evidence here met all of the factors required for admissibility under 12 O.S.2011, § 2414 Horn v. State , 2009 OK CR 7 204 P.”
Perez v. State, 2023 OK CR 1.
· cites it 2× “¶4 The challenged evidence here met all of the factors required for admissibility under 12 O.S.2011, § 2414. In Horn v. State , 2009 OK CR 7, ¶ 40 , 204 P.”
Bryant v. Dowling, No. 20-5100 (10th Cir. June 8, 2022).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2414(A). 21 Appellate Case: 20-5100 Document: 010110694190 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 22 R.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2414(A): 2 cases
NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7, 274 P.3d 161.
“12 O.S.Supp.2007, § 2414(A) (emphasis added).”
Bryant v. Dowling, No. 20-5100 (10th Cir. June 8, 2022).
“” Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 2414(A). 21 Appellate Case: 20-5100 Document: 010110694190 Date Filed: 06/08/2022 Page: 22 R.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2414(B): 1 case
Taylor v. Martin, No. 6:16-cv-00462 (E.D. Okla. Mar. 12, 2020).
“The OCCA found no merit in Petitioner’s claim: In Proposition Three, Appellant contends the trial court erroneously admitted sexual propensity evidence without the fifteen (15) day notice required by 12 O.S.2011, § 2414. The State points out that its discovery notice directly…”
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.