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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2701 (2026)

Opinion testimony by lay witnesses

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

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are: 1. Rationally based on the perception of the witness; 2. Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; and 3. Not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Section 2702 of this title. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 701, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 54, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases, 1982–2018 · leading case: Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “12 O.S.2011, § 2701. ¶32 Prior to trial defense counsel filed a bench brief regarding the admissibility of cell phone tower records and geographic location data from cell phones in which the defense objected to the propriety of using lay witnesses as experts arguing, "[t]he…”
Frederick v. State, 2017 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “See 12 O.S.2011, § 2701. ¶66 In light of Appellant's objection, we review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion.”
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “12 O.S.1991, § 2701. Further, admission of Bevel’s personal opinion is more prejudicial than probative because it carries the substantial weight and credibility of an expert opinion.”
Littlejohn v. State, 2004 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “¶ 35 Opinion testimony by a lay witness is permissible under 12 O.S.2001, § 2701, when it is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful in the determination of a fact in issue.”
Frederick v. State, 400 P.3d 786 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “We find the testimony was properly admitted as lay witness opinion testimony under 12 O.S.2011, § 2701. See also Littlejohn v.”
Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Opinion testimony of a lay witness is permissible under 12 O.S.2001, § 2701 when it is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to the determination of a fact in issue.”
Ball v. State, 2007 OK CR 42 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “This testimony did not simply tell the jury what result to reach; it provided conclusions drawn from "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge," to assist the judges of fact in resolving conflicting information about the nature of Keenan's injuries.”
Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “[63] 12 O.S.1991, § 2701. [64] Fairchild, 70 OBJ at 3662, 992 P.”
Howell v. State, 2006 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Opinion testimony of a lay witness is permissible under 12 O.S.2001, § 2701 when it is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to the determination of a fact in issue.”
Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “[60] 12 O.S.1991, § 2701; Doyle v. State, 1989 OK CR 85 , 785 P.”
Stouffer v. Trammell, 738 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2013). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2701 ; see abo Welch v.”
Romano v. State, 847 P.2d 368 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). “See 12 O.S.1981, § 2701. Further, we find no error in the prosecutor use of the term “jailhouse religion” during closing argument.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2701(1): 1 case
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “12 O.S.1991, § 2701. Further, admission of Bevel’s personal opinion is more prejudicial than probative because it carries the substantial weight and credibility of an expert opinion.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2701(2): 1 case
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “12 O.S.1991, § 2701. Further, admission of Bevel’s personal opinion is more prejudicial than probative because it carries the substantial weight and credibility of an expert opinion.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2701(3): 1 case
Tortorelli v. Mercy Health Ctr., Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 105 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010).
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.