A. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness: 1. Evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Section 2403 of this title, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year pursuant to the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused; and 2. Evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
B. Evidence of a conviction under this section is not admissible if a period of more than ten (10) years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is later, to the date of the witness’s testimony, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, if the witness is a defendant currently charged with a sexual offense involving a child, testifying at a criminal proceeding regarding the current charge of the defendant and has a prior conviction for a sexual offense involving a child, the conviction of the prior sexual offense involving a child is admissible for the purpose of impeachment of the defendant regardless of the age of the prior conviction. Evidence of a conviction more than ten (10) years old, as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence or unless, during the ten-year period, the witness has been convicted of a subsequent crime which is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony. C. Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this Code if: 1. The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one (1) year; or 2. The conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence. D. Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible under this Code. The court in a criminal case may, however, allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence. E. The pendency of an appeal from the conviction does not render evidence of that conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 609, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1991, c. 62, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 2000, c. 245, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 48, eff. Nov. 1, 2002; Laws 2004, c. 275, § 1, eff. July 1, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
86
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “See 12 O.S.2001, § 2609. ¶ 70 Appellant also complains that the factual details surrounding his criminal history were improperly admitted during the guilt stage.”
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “The crime of prostitution does not meet the requirements for admissibility as impeachment evidence under 12 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2609. Looking to the statute, § 2609(A)(1) permits impeaching witness credibility with evidence of felony convictions within the last ten years.”
Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Hancock argues that the OCCA mistakenly thought that the district court had allowed the testimony as impeachment evidence under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609 (B). This section governs impeachment of witnesses with convictions more than ten years old.”
Hooks v. Workman, 606 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The OCCA concluded trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek to exclude the prior convictions because those convictions were admissible at trial for impeachment purposes pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609 (A)(1). Hooks, 19 P.”
Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “It was therefore admissible under the provisions of 12 O.S.1981, § 2609(A)(2). 6 Furthermore, it was admissible under 12 O.”
Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 12 O.S.2011, § 2609(A)(1). Convictions involving dishonesty or false statement are also admissible.”
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.”
Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003).
“The motion asserted as justification for the relief request that a deferred sentence is not a prior conviction for purposes of “impeachment by evidence of conviction of a crime” under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609 . See White v.”
Cline v. State, 782 P.2d 399 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “1987) to argue these are not crimes involving dishonesty and therefore, are inadmissible for the purpose of impeachment under 12 O.S.1981, § 2609. Appellant’s argument belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct categories of evidence encompassed by 12 O.”
Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609 (rule governing admission of prior convictions); Gourley v.”
Croney v. State, 748 P.2d 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “See 12 O.S.1981, §§ 2609(A)(2), 2609(B). One felony conviction for possession of a stolen credit card occurred within ten years of the appellant’s trial.”
Johnston v. Stacy, 2016 OK CIV APP 56 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Investigating the “prior discussion” noted by the court, it appears that Stacy’s counsel proposed, and the court agreed, that, pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 2609, evidence of a prior felony conviction of a party to a civil trial musí be admitted by the court, and is not subject to…”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(A) — 3 cases
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(A)(1) — 6 cases
Nicholson v. State, 2018 OK CR 10 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“" 12 O.S.2011, § 2609(A)(1). Convictions involving dishonesty or false statement are also admissible.”
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“The crime of prostitution does not meet the requirements for admissibility as impeachment evidence under 12 O.S.Supp.2004, § 2609. Looking to the statute, § 2609(A)(1) permits impeaching witness credibility with evidence of felony convictions within the last ten years.”
Cline v. State, 782 P.2d 399 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
“1987) to argue these are not crimes involving dishonesty and therefore, are inadmissible for the purpose of impeachment under 12 O.S.1981, § 2609. Appellant’s argument belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the distinct categories of evidence encompassed by 12 O.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(A)(2) — 14 cases
Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“It was therefore admissible under the provisions of 12 O.S.1981, § 2609(A)(2). 6 Furthermore, it was admissible under 12 O.”
Croney v. State, 748 P.2d 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
“See 12 O.S.1981, §§ 2609(A)(2), 2609(B). One felony conviction for possession of a stolen credit card occurred within ten years of the appellant’s trial.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(B) — 17 cases
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.”
Hancock v. Trammell, 798 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2015).
“Hancock argues that the OCCA mistakenly thought that the district court had allowed the testimony as impeachment evidence under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609 (B). This section governs impeachment of witnesses with convictions more than ten years old.”
Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“It was therefore admissible under the provisions of 12 O.S.1981, § 2609(A)(2). 6 Furthermore, it was admissible under 12 O.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(D) — 4 cases
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
“See 12 O.S.2001, § 2609. ¶ 70 Appellant also complains that the factual details surrounding his criminal history were improperly admitted during the guilt stage.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2609(E) — 2 cases
Rushing v. State, 676 P.2d 842 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
“It was therefore admissible under the provisions of 12 O.S.1981, § 2609(A)(2). 6 Furthermore, it was admissible under 12 O.”
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.