A. In exceptional circumstances a statement not covered by Section 2803, 2804, 2805, or 2806 of this title but possessing equivalent, though not identical, circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the court determines that:
1. The statement is offered as evidence of a fact of consequence; 2. The statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and 3. The general purposes of this Code and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. B. The court shall state on the record the circumstances that support its determination of the admissibility of the statement offered pursuant to subsection A of this section. C. A statement is not admissible under this exception unless its proponent gives to all parties reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice for good cause shown, of the substance of the statement and the identity of the declarant. Added by Laws 2002, c. 468, § 61, eff. Nov. 1, 2002.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case:
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
Hancock v. State, 2007 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“" ¶ 75 Appellant characterizes much of the District Court's rationale for admitting the conviction in unflattering terms, indulging a lengthy discourse about how the District Court admitted the conviction under either a "hybrid" interpretation of sections 2609 and 2404(B), or a…”
Mitchell v. State, 2005 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
“12 O.S.Supp.2002, § 2804.1. ¶ 25 On appeal, Mitchell continues to claim admission of Kyree's statement to Detective Edwards-that Mitchell "would hit the baby In the head with his hand and would pick the baby up by her feet and throw her on the floor.”
Seminole Fam. Med. Clinic v. S., 2005 OK CIV APP 46 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 2804.1, she offered into evidence an affidavit from Ms.”
Weidenfelder (N.D. Okla. 2026).
“The trial judge denied the defense’s request to introduce evidence of Spaulding’s statement upon finding it was not reliable because it was made in the context of Spaulding attempting to exculpate himself and shift all blame for the murder to Petitioner.”
Rodriguez v. State of Oklahoma, 2025 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2025).
“¶6 On appeal, counsel for the Appellant limits the argument to whether the statement of the victim/declarant to the witness, a police detective, was admissible under the residual hearsay exception for trustworthy statements at 12 O.S.2021, § 2804.1 . . . a statement not covered…”
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.