When the jury has been sworn, the trial shall proceed in the following order, unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs: First. The party on whom rests the burden of the issues may briefly state his case, and the evidence by which he expects to sustain it. Second. The adverse party may then briefly state his defense, and the evidence he expects to offer in support of it. Third. The party on whom rests the burden of the issues must first produce his evidence; after he has closed his evidence the adverse party may interpose and file a demurrer thereto, upon the ground that no cause of action or defense is proved. If the court shall sustain the demurrer, such judgment shall be rendered for the party demurring as the state of the pleadings or the proof shall demand. If the demurrer be overruled, the adverse party will then produce his evidence.
Fourth. The parties will then be confined to rebutting evidence unless the court, for good reasons in furtherance of justice, permits them to offer evidence in the original case. Fifth. When the evidence is concluded and either party desires special instructions to be given to the jury, such instructions shall be reduced to writing, numbered, and signed by the party or his attorney asking the same, and delivered to the court. The court shall give general instructions to the jury, which shall be in writing, and be numbered, and signed by the judge, if required by either party. Sixth. When either party asks special instructions to be given to the jury, the court shall either give such instructions as requested, or positively refuse to do so; or give the instructions with modification in such manner that it shall distinctly appear what instructions were given in whole or part, and in like manner those refused, so that either party may except to the instructions as asked for, or as modified, or to the modification, or to the refusal. All instructions given by the court must be signed by the judge; and filed together with those asked for by the parties as a part of the record. Seventh. After the instructions have been given to the jury the cause may be argued. R.L. 1910, § 5002.
Notes of Decisions
Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 2006 OK 47, 139 P.3d 897.
· cites it 5× “¶ 27 The right to present argument is codified in our civil procedure statutes at 12 O.S.2001, § 577. Section 577 prescribes the order of a jury trial.”
Timmons v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 653 P.2d 907 (Okla. 1982).
“Hence no error in the failure to give a more specific instruction is found under the record on appeal.”
Long v. State, 2003 OK CR 14, 74 P.3d 105.
“This proposition is denied. *108 ¶ 7 Appellant asserts that he was denied the right of closing argument and cites statutory authority that requires the court to allow closing argument in a jury trial.”
Smith v. Barker, 419 P.3d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
“The Instructions Were Legally Incorrect ¶ 45 We note, first, that the court's introductory statement of the issues in the case, Instruction No.”
Jackson v. Jones, 907 P.2d 1067 (Okla. 1995).
“The terms of 12 O.S.1991 § 577 provide in pertinent part: "When the jury has been sworn, the trial shall proceed in the following order, unless the court for special reasons otherwise directs: * * * * * * Third.”
Chesapeake Operating Inc. v. Kast Trust Farms, 352 P.3d 1231 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “¶37 Chesapeake further asserts the trial court erred by requiring it to present its evidence first at trial despite Trust having the burden of proof, in contravention to 12 O.S.2011, § 577, and in the introduction of over 70 red-hued photographs.”
Moore v. Target Stores, Inc., 571 P.2d 1236 (Okla. Civ. App. 1977).
“Both parties stated in the record the instructions met with their approval, and one defendant told the trial court he had an instruction on probable cause but he liked the court’s better.”
State ex rel. Bailey v. Powers, 566 P.2d 454 (Okla. 1977).
· cites it 2× “It is contended the trial court erred in not allowing the appellant the op *456 portunity to present its evidence in its entirety as provided by 12 O.S.1971 § 577(3). 2 Appellee argues that the prosecutrix could not in good faith initiate the action because she could not and did…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 577(3): 1 case
State ex rel. Bailey v. Powers, 566 P.2d 454 (Okla. 1977).
“It is contended the trial court erred in not allowing the appellant the op *456 portunity to present its evidence in its entirety as provided by 12 O.S.1971 § 577(3). 2 Appellee argues that the prosecutrix could not in good faith initiate the action because she could not and did…”
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.