Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1021.2 (2026)

See the following versions:

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

OS 21-1021.2v1 (HB 3936, Laws 2024, c. 59, 9) OS 21-1021.2v2 (HB 2104, Laws 2025, c. 486, § 49)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001).
Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City, 248 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 7× “*1218 At the conclusion of the litigation, which included a jury trial, Carafield obtained partial declaratory relief and statutory damages on his VPPA claim, but was unsuccessful on his section 1983 claims and his attempt to have Oklahoma’s child pornography statute,…”
Brown v. State, 2008 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “CF-2004-6248, and found guilty of 100 Counts of Possession of Obscene Material Involving the Participation of a Child Under 18, in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1021.2. The jury fixed punishment at six months imprisonment on each count.”
Shultz v. State, 811 P.2d 1322 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “The jury recommended as punishment twenty (20) years imprisonment and a twenty-five thousand dollar ($25,000) fine in Count I and twenty (20) years imprisonment and a twenty thousand dollar ($20,000) fine in Count II.”
United States v. William Riley Simpson, 152 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 1998). “We view the affidavit and warrant against a backdrop of applicable state law, and here the warrant was for “possession of child pornography,” an offense detailed in Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1021.2 . Several factors suggest probable cause to believe that the statute had been…”
Arganbright v. State, 2014 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). “This chapter contains the prohibitions against the procurement or manufacture of child pornography (21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2); child prostitution (21 O.”
Lacy v. State, 2007 OK CR 20 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶ 1 Otis Harold Lacy was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Procuring Child Pornography in violation of 21 O.S.2001, § 1021.2; Count II, Distributing Child Pornography in violation of 21 O.”
Hamilton v. State, 2016 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “CF-2014-171, of Distribution of Child Pornography (21 O.S.2011, § 1021.2) (Count 1) and Aggravated Possession of Child Pornography (21 O.”
Lyons v. State, 787 P.2d 460 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). “CRF-86-4182; and three counts of Soliciting Minor for Lewd Photograph (21 O.S.1981, § 1021.2) and two counts of Possession of Obscene Photographs of a Minor ( 21 O.”
Hamilton v. State, 2016 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “LaFortune, District Judge, sentenced him in accordance with the jury's recommendation as follows: Count 1, ten years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine; Count 2, twenty-five years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.”
Showalter v. Addison, 458 F. App'x 722 (10th Cir. 2012). “21, § 888 , and one count of manufacturing child pornography, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1021.2 , both after two or more prior felony convictions.”
State v. Crosson, 2023 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “Specifically, Judge Crosson found that there was probable cause the defendant committed the crimes of Manufacturing Child Pornography in violation of 21 O.S. § 1021.2; Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 21 O.”
United States v. Simpson (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “It 1 Child pornography under Oklahoma law is defined at Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1021.2 . -9- further recited that Detective Johnson had received information from FBI Agent Ken Kaminski that Agent Doug Rehman had contacted Simpson over the Internet and “had made a deal with the…”
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.