Okla. Stat. » Title 12 — CIVIL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2504 (2026)

Husband-wife privilege

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A communication is confidential for purposes of this section if it is made privately by any person to the person’s spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. B. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent the spouse of the accused from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse. C. The privilege may be claimed by the accused or by the spouse on behalf of the accused. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed. D. There is no privilege under this section in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of: 1. The other; 2. A child of either; 3. A person residing in the household of either; or 4. A third person when the crime is committed in the course of committing a crime against any other person named in this section. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 504, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 34, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “It properly informed the jury of the punishment range for manslaughter and that the issue of punishment for first degree murder was not before the jury at that time.”
Stafford v. State, 669 P.2d 285 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 702, which was still valid at the time of the appellant’s trial, was more restrictive than 12 O.S.1981, § 2504, which was also in force.”
Coleman v. State, 668 P.2d 1126 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “1981, § 702 and 12 O.S.1981, § 2504. In Lavicky v. State, 632 P.”
McHam v. State, 2005 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Because Appellant moved to exclude this evidence on these grounds prior to trial, and renewed his objection when the evidence was presented at trial, the issue has been preserved for appellate review. ¶ 24 Communications between spouses are subject to evidentiary privilege if…”
United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against . . . any person residing in the household"); N.”
Stafford v. State, 665 P.2d 1205 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “He contends that Verna Stafford’s testimony violated the husband and wife privilege under 12 O.S.1981, § 2504. Section 2504 provides in part: A.”
Wackerly v. State, 2000 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Appellant argues in his third proposition that the statements he made to his wife about the murder were confidential communications under 12 O.S.1991, § 2504 [10] which were privileged and that error occurred when Michelle Wackerly was allowed to testify about these privileged…”
State v. Christian, 841 A.2d 1158 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “42 (West 1994); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2504 (West 1993); Or.”
Anderson v. State, 1999 OK CR 44 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “[13] 12 O.S.1991, § 2504. [14] Trial Transcript III, p.”
United States v. James Montgomery, United States of Am. v. Mary O'COnnOr, 384 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). “02(d); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2504 ; Or.Rev.”
Murphy v. State, 2002 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “[4] The marital privilege, set forth at 12 O.S.1991, § 2504 "draws no distinction between types of marriage, and, therefore, as was true under prior common law, the privilege would apply equally to common law and ceremonial marriages.”
Brown v. State, 753 A.2d 84 (Md. 2000). · cites it 2× “02(D) (Anderson 1998); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2504 (B) (1993); Or.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2504(A) — 4 cases
Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “It properly informed the jury of the punishment range for manslaughter and that the issue of punishment for first degree murder was not before the jury at that time.”
Stafford v. State, 665 P.2d 1205 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “He contends that Verna Stafford’s testimony violated the husband and wife privilege under 12 O.S.1981, § 2504. Section 2504 provides in part: A.”
Wackerly v. State, 2000 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “Appellant argues in his third proposition that the statements he made to his wife about the murder were confidential communications under 12 O.S.1991, § 2504 [10] which were privileged and that error occurred when Michelle Wackerly was allowed to testify about these privileged…”
Johnson v. State, 911 P.2d 918 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2504(B) — 2 cases
Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “It properly informed the jury of the punishment range for manslaughter and that the issue of punishment for first degree murder was not before the jury at that time.”
Lavicky v. State, 632 P.2d 1234 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
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.