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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608 (2026)

Evidence of character and conduct of witness

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, subject to these limitations: 1. The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; and 2. Evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked. B. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’s credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Section 2609 of this title, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness if they: 1. Concern the witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness; 2. Concern the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross- examined has testified. C. The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused’s or the witness’s privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 608, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 47, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017. · cites it 4× “" 12 O.S.2001, § 2608(B)(1). ¶ 71 The details of Appellant's criminal history were directly relevant to his credibility as a witness.”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. · cites it 3× “12 O.S.1991, § 2608(A)(2)(evidence of truthful character is admissible only after witness’s character has been attacked).”
Perez v. State, 525 P.3d 46 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “was probative of Appellant's truthfulness and was permissible. However, the prosecutor was required to take Appellant's answer and was prohibited under the Evidence Code from introducing extrinsic evidence in rebuttal to contradict Appellant's testimony.”
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “However, under the facts of this case, the Court is not presented with opinion evidence relating to a witness, but the very basis of the witnesses’ testimony.”
Knapper v. State, 2020 OK CR 16, 473 P.3d 1053. · cites it 2× “12 O.S.2011, § 2608(B)(1); Dodd v. State , 2004 OK CR 31, ¶ 73, 100 P.”
Hawkins v. State, 717 P.2d 1156 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B)(1). 4 In the instant case, appellant testified that he could not drink any amount of liquor due to a health problem.”
Martinez v. State, 1999 OK CR 33, 984 P.2d 813. · cites it 2× “Such testimony is not admissible based on the facts of this case, *823 except as allowed by 12 O.S.1991, § 2608. Even when credibility of a witness is at issue, specific instances of the witness’ conduct may not be proven extrinsieally, but may, in the court’s discretion, where…”
Owens v. State, 2010 OK CR 1, 229 P.3d 1261. · cites it 2× “2d 651, 667 (citing 12 O.S.1991, § 2608(B))(extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach a witness with specific instances of conduct).”
Folks v. State, 2008 OK CR 29, 207 P.3d 379. · cites it 2× “See also 12 O.S.2001, § 2608 (a deferred sentence is not a conviction, even though it may be derived by way of a guilty plea, and it is not a proper subject for impeachment).”
Hawkins v. State, 782 P.2d 139 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Likewise, the prohibition by 12 O.S.1981, § 2608 of inquiry into specific instances of conduct is not implicated by the evidence in question here.”
Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “We find the court correctly sustained the State’s objection to their introduction based upon 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B), which disallows the use of specific instances of conduct to impeach a witness’ credibility.”
Moore v. State, 736 P.2d 161 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “The testimony did not concern Caster’s character for truthfulness and its admission is prohibited by 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B). This section of the Evidence Code provides that specific instances of conduct of a witness may not be proved by extrinsic evidence unless it concerns the…”
Show all 34 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608(A): 1 case
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “However, under the facts of this case, the Court is not presented with opinion evidence relating to a witness, but the very basis of the witnesses’ testimony.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608(A)(1): 1 case
Klinker v. State, 826 P.2d 998 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608(A)(2): 4 cases
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. “12 O.S.1991, § 2608(A)(2)(evidence of truthful character is admissible only after witness’s character has been attacked).”
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “However, under the facts of this case, the Court is not presented with opinion evidence relating to a witness, but the very basis of the witnesses’ testimony.”
State v. Gaytan, 1998 OK CR 71, 972 P.2d 356.
Klinker v. State, 826 P.2d 998 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608(B): 20 cases
Owens v. State, 2010 OK CR 1, 229 P.3d 1261. “2d 651, 667 (citing 12 O.S.1991, § 2608(B))(extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach a witness with specific instances of conduct).”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. “12 O.S.1991, § 2608(A)(2)(evidence of truthful character is admissible only after witness’s character has been attacked).”
Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “We find the court correctly sustained the State’s objection to their introduction based upon 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B), which disallows the use of specific instances of conduct to impeach a witness’ credibility.”
Moore v. State, 736 P.2d 161 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “The testimony did not concern Caster’s character for truthfulness and its admission is prohibited by 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B). This section of the Evidence Code provides that specific instances of conduct of a witness may not be proved by extrinsic evidence unless it concerns the…”
Beck v. State, 824 P.2d 385 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2608(B)(1): 5 cases
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017. “" 12 O.S.2001, § 2608(B)(1). ¶ 71 The details of Appellant's criminal history were directly relevant to his credibility as a witness.”
Knapper v. State, 2020 OK CR 16, 473 P.3d 1053. “12 O.S.2011, § 2608(B)(1); Dodd v. State , 2004 OK CR 31, ¶ 73, 100 P.”
Hawkins v. State, 717 P.2d 1156 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “See 12 O.S.1981, § 2608(B)(1). 4 In the instant case, appellant testified that he could not drink any amount of liquor due to a health problem.”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. “12 O.S.1991, § 2608(A)(2)(evidence of truthful character is admissible only after witness’s character has been attacked).”
Carolina v. State, 839 P.2d 663 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
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.