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

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801 (2026)

Definitions

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

A. For purposes of this Code: 1. A "statement" means: a. an oral assertion, b. an assertion in a record, or c. nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by a person as an assertion; 2. A "declarant" means a person who makes a statement; and 3. "Hearsay" means a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. B. A statement is not hearsay if: 1. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: a. inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or

b. consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive and was made before the supposed fabrication, influence, or motive arose, or c. one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or 2. The statement is offered against a party and is: a. the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity, or b. a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or c. a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or d. a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or e. a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Added by Laws 1978, c. 285, § 801, eff. Oct. 1, 1978. Amended by Laws 1991, c. 62, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 2002, c. 468, § 57, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 130 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 14× “The testimony of Morrow was not hearsay under 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3), since it constituted statements made in court and under oath.”
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “12 O.S.2011, § 2801 (B)(2)(a). The statements at issue here were not inadmissible hearsay.”
Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Pink , however, employed a faulty analysis by confusing the admissibility of a co-conspirator's in-court testimony with the admissibility of his out-of-court statements in furtherance of the conspiracy under 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(2)(e). ¶ 15 The genesis of this confusion is…”
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 7× “12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3) (testimony by a witness at trial concerning that witness’ personal observations made outside the courtroom is not hearsay).”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Faulk, 2021 OK 46 (Okla. 2021). · cites it 6× “See 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(2)(a) ("A statement is not hearsay if: .”
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Appellant does not suggest what exception to the hearsay rule would have allowed trial counsel to have ad *20 mitted Vickie McElmurry’s statement.”
Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “801(c); Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801 (A)(3) (same).”
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(1)(b). An assertion is “a statement of truth, a positive declaration.”
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “12 O.S.2011, §§ 2801(B)(1)(c) & 2802; Davis v.”
McClendon v. State, 777 P.2d 948 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3). The out of court statement was not offered to prove that the investment was a good deal, but rather to show that Thompson was soliciting investments for McClendon.”
Davis v. State, 2018 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the continuing vitality of this prohibition is undermined by the Legislature's amendment of Title 12 O.S.2011, § 2801 to state the following: B.”
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “12 O.S.1991, § 2801(3). They were offered to show why Officer Jackson began searching for Yancey Douglas.”
Show all 130 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(1) — 1 case
Lee v. State, 700 P.2d 1017 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(1)(b) — 2 cases
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(1)(b). An assertion is “a statement of truth, a positive declaration.”
Nelson v. State, 2001 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(3) — 37 cases
Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “The testimony of Morrow was not hearsay under 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3), since it constituted statements made in court and under oath.”
Ledbetter v. State, 933 P.2d 880 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Frederick v. State, 2017 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
Allen v. State, 871 P.2d 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
Alverson v. State, 1999 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4) — 2 cases
DeLozier v. State, 1998 OK CR 76 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).
State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. 1985 Chevrolet Blazer, Vin No. 1G8CT18B8F825A742, TX Tag 2465TZ, 994 P.2d 1183 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(B)(1) — 1 case
Hooper v. State, 947 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(a) — 2 cases
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1985).
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000). “12 O.S.1991, § 2801(3). They were offered to show why Officer Jackson began searching for Yancey Douglas.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(a)(1) — 4 cases
Modesitt v. State, 578 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 1991).
Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d 1001 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Bernay v. State, 1999 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
Pinkley v. State, 2002 OK CR 26 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(a)(2) — 8 cases
Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “The testimony of Morrow was not hearsay under 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3), since it constituted statements made in court and under oath.”
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “Appellant does not suggest what exception to the hearsay rule would have allowed trial counsel to have ad *20 mitted Vickie McElmurry’s statement.”
Myers v. State, 2006 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Davis v. State, 665 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
Jones v. State, 738 P.2d 525 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(a)(l) — 5 cases
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3) (testimony by a witness at trial concerning that witness’ personal observations made outside the courtroom is not hearsay).”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Hamilton v. State, 937 P.2d 1001 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997).
Bernay v. State, 1999 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
Bennett v. State, 652 P.2d 1237 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b) — 3 cases
Jackson v. State, 1998 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998).
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Perkins, 757 P.2d 825 (Okla. 1988).
Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc., 780 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1989).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(1) — 2 cases
Phillips v. State, 1999 OK CR 38 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “The testimony of Morrow was not hearsay under 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3), since it constituted statements made in court and under oath.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(2) — 4 cases
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(1)(b). An assertion is “a statement of truth, a positive declaration.”
Cooper v. State, 671 P.2d 1168 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
Mantha v. Liquid Carbonic Indus., Inc., 839 P.2d 200 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992).
Wauqua v. State, 694 P.2d 532 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(3) — 2 cases
Holley v. Shepard, 744 P.2d 945 (Okla. 1987).
Russell v. State ex rel. Grimes, 672 P.2d 323 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(4) — 1 case
McClendon v. State, 777 P.2d 948 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3). The out of court statement was not offered to prove that the investment was a good deal, but rather to show that Thompson was soliciting investments for McClendon.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(5) — 15 cases
Omalza v. State, 911 P.2d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3) (testimony by a witness at trial concerning that witness’ personal observations made outside the courtroom is not hearsay).”
Mann v. State, 749 P.2d 1151 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Romano v. State, 909 P.2d 92 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “” 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(1)(b). An assertion is “a statement of truth, a positive declaration.”
Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “The testimony of Morrow was not hearsay under 12 O.S.1981, § 2801(3), since it constituted statements made in court and under oath.”
Stafford v. State, 665 P.2d 1205 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4)(b)(l) — 14 cases
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “Appellant does not suggest what exception to the hearsay rule would have allowed trial counsel to have ad *20 mitted Vickie McElmurry’s statement.”
Walker v. State, 887 P.2d 301 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Rawlings v. State, 740 P.2d 153 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Plantz v. State, 876 P.2d 268 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(4Xb) — 1 case
Hill v. State, 638 P.2d 1128 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(A) — 1 case
Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(A)(1) — 1 case
Jackson v. State, 2024 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(A)(3) — 12 cases
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019). “12 O.S.2011, § 2801 (B)(2)(a). The statements at issue here were not inadmissible hearsay.”
Gordon v. State, 2019 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
Ashton v. State, 400 P.3d 887 (Okla. Crim. App. 2017).
Logsdon v. State, 2010 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
Summers v. State, 2010 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(B)(1)(c) — 5 cases
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “12 O.S.2011, §§ 2801(B)(1)(c) & 2802; Davis v.”
Mahdavi v. State, 2020 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).
Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Lamar v. State, 2018 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
Mason v. State, 2018 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(B)(2)(a) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Faulk, 2021 OK 46 (Okla. 2021). “See 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(2)(a) ("A statement is not hearsay if: .”
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
Jackson v. State, 2024 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2801(B)(2)(e) — 2 cases
Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “Pink , however, employed a faulty analysis by confusing the admissibility of a co-conspirator's in-court testimony with the admissibility of his out-of-court statements in furtherance of the conspiracy under 12 O.S.2011, § 2801(B)(2)(e). ¶ 15 The genesis of this confusion is…”
Pink v. State, 2004 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004).
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.