Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2613 (2026)
Prior statements of witnesses
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness whether in a record or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to the witness at that time but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel just prior to the cross-examination of the witness. B. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party opponent as defined in paragraph 2 of subsection B of Section 2801 of this title. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 613, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 53, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, 419 P.3d 283.
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8, 419 P.3d 283. “¶48 The district court struck Wiggins's testimony on cross-examination concerning her purported prior inconsistent statement in the writing she referred to in her testimony because defense counsel was unable to produce the writing as required by 12 O.”
Tafolla v. State, 2019 OK CR 15, 446 P.3d 1248. “This questioning was proper impeachment under 12 O.S.2011, § 2613(A). The prosecutor's questions were not improper nor were his comments on the witness's responses in closing.”
Tafolla v. State, 446 P.3d 1248 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “This questioning was proper impeachment under 12 O.S.2011, § 2613(A). The prosecutor's questions were not improper nor were his comments on the witness's responses in closing.”
Goode v. State, 2010 OK CR 10, 236 P.3d 671. “Denton's testimony and the recording was essentially used to impeach Chastain's testimony, which is proper pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 2613(B). [7] During the examination, counsel asked Denton about Chastain's statements regarding where Goode confided in her and the "homeless…”
Crussel v. Kirk, 894 P.2d 1116 (Okla. 1995). “” The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2613 are: “A. In examining a witness concerning a pri- or statement made by him whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to him at that time but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to…”
Hooks v. State, 2001 OK CR 1, 19 P.3d 294. “[16] Hooks cites by analogy 12 O.S.1991, § 2613, governing admissibility of extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements.”
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9, 155 P.3d 796. “See 12 O.S.2001, §§ 2613, 2801 (a party may impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements; such out-of-court statements are not hearsay when offered to impeach a witness).”
Dodd v. State, 2000 OK CR 2, 993 P.2d 778. “The excluded evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes pursuant to 12 O.S.1991, § 2613(B). Bryant's credibility was a pivotal issue in this case.”
Folks v. State, 2008 OK CR 29, 207 P.3d 379. “, his trial testimony that he did not see Appellant sexually abuse D.R. and his denials to having made any statements to the contrary were inconsistent with his pre-trial statements.”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. “” ¶ 89 First, Appellant argues Officer Owen’s testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The State offered Owen’s testimony to impeach Cole with a prior inconsistent statement.”
Williams v. State, 915 P.2d 371 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “[24] 12 O.S.1991, § 2613. [25] 747 P.2d 971, 974 (Okl.”
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “The Code also set forth procedures for questioning witnesses about their prior statements in 12 O.S.1981, § 2613. Prior statements of a witness need not be shown nor their contents disclosed prior to questioning the witness about the statements.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2613(A): 3 cases
Tafolla v. State, 2019 OK CR 15, 446 P.3d 1248. “This questioning was proper impeachment under 12 O.S.2011, § 2613(A). The prosecutor's questions were not improper nor were his comments on the witness's responses in closing.”
Tafolla v. State, 446 P.3d 1248 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “This questioning was proper impeachment under 12 O.S.2011, § 2613(A). The prosecutor's questions were not improper nor were his comments on the witness's responses in closing.”
Crussel v. Kirk, 894 P.2d 1116 (Okla. 1995). “” The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2613 are: “A. In examining a witness concerning a pri- or statement made by him whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to him at that time but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2613(B): 5 cases
Goode v. State, 2010 OK CR 10, 236 P.3d 671. “Denton's testimony and the recording was essentially used to impeach Chastain's testimony, which is proper pursuant to 12 O.S.2001, § 2613(B). [7] During the examination, counsel asked Denton about Chastain's statements regarding where Goode confided in her and the "homeless…”
Dodd v. State, 2000 OK CR 2, 993 P.2d 778. “The excluded evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes pursuant to 12 O.S.1991, § 2613(B). Bryant's credibility was a pivotal issue in this case.”
Folks v. State, 2008 OK CR 29, 207 P.3d 379. “, his trial testimony that he did not see Appellant sexually abuse D.R. and his denials to having made any statements to the contrary were inconsistent with his pre-trial statements.”
Crussel v. Kirk, 894 P.2d 1116 (Okla. 1995). “” The pertinent terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 2613 are: “A. In examining a witness concerning a pri- or statement made by him whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to him at that time but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to…”
Cole v. State, 634 P.2d 1313 (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.