If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: 1. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; 2. The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; 3. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 4. The expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 702, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 15, § 2; Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 15, § 3; Laws 2025, c. 311, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2025. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 18 was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013) and repealed by Laws 2013, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 15, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
92
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Bramlett v. State, 2018 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “2013, § 2702 provides that under certain conditions, "[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or…”
Nelson v. Enid Med. Assocs., Inc., 2016 OK 69 (Okla. 2016).
· cites it 8× “We hold the opinions of the two witnesses on the issue of causation satisfied the requirements of 12 O.S. § 2702, and reverse the summary judgment granted by the District Court.”
Cripps v. State, 2016 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “12 O.S.2011, § 2702. 3 Stephens never testified that Cripps was driving the car at the time of the collision.”
Taylor v. State, 889 P.2d 319 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “I agree with Professor Whinery as he analyzed 12 O.S. § 2702. He feels that a clarification of the law as it relates to the Oklahoma Standard governing the admissibility of novel forms of scientific evidence and Section 2702 would be helpful.”
Christian v. Gray, 2003 OK 10 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 2× “¶ 5 In Oklahoma the testimony of an expert is controlled by the applicable statutes found in the Oklahoma Evidence Code, 12 O.S.2001 § 2702 (Testimony by Experts); 5 § 2703 (Bases of Opinion Testimony by Expert); 6 § 2704 (Opinion on Ultimate Issue); 7 and § 2705 (Disclosure of…”
Bosse v. State, 400 P.3d 834 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “12 O.S.2011, § 2702. Taken together, Daubert v.”
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “¶ 22 "If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion…”
Moore v. Blackwell, 325 P.3d 4 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “" Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2702 (West 2009). 17 To follow the dissent's reasoning in allowing expert opinions on fault and causation would in our view, by endorsing a "contest of experts," unnecessarily drive up the cost of litigating cases when these issues, according to our…”
Cuesta-Rodriguez v. State, 2010 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “3d at 217 ; ( quoting 12 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2702). I agree that there is nothing in the record to show that Dr.”
Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “" See 12 O.S.1991, § 2702. We also find that testimony was properly admitted.”
Davenport v. State, 806 P.2d 655 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Ernst's testimony concerned only the typical behavior patterns of child victims of sexual abuse, we find that its admission under 12 O.S.1981, § 2702 was not error. The syndrome may only be used as a form of rebuttal to explain why the child has retracted or recanted a statement…”
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.