Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.51 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 2000, c. 208, § 24, eff. Nov. 1,

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

2000.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Hunt v. State, 601 P.2d 464 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979).
Hunt v. State, 601 P.2d 464 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). · cites it 5× “*466 OPINION CORNISH, Presiding Judge: The appellant was convicted of Unlawful Sale of Movies Showing Acts of Sexual Intercourse or Unnatural Copulation — 21 O.S.1971, § 1040.51 — in the District Court, Tulsa County Case No.”
Hanf v. State, 560 P.2d 207 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). · cites it 4× “CRF 73-2110, for the offense of Selling a Magazine Showing Acts of Sexual Intercourse in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1040.51. His punishment was fixed at seven (7) years’ imprisonment and a Seven Thousand ($7,000.”
Morrison v. State, 619 P.2d 203 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “OPINION BUSSEY, Judge: Floyd Lee Morrison appeals his conviction following a jury trial on a charge of Unlawful Sale of Movies Showing Acts of Sexual Intercourse or Unnatural Copulation, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1040.51, in the Tulsa County District Court, Case No.”
Davis v. State, 916 P.2d 251 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “2; Count IV: Trafficking in Obscene Pictures in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1040.51; and, Count V: Using a Computer to Violate Oklahoma Statutes in violation of 21 O.”
Hildahl v. State, 536 P.2d 1292 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “OPINION BLISS, Judge: The appellant, Gerald Hildahl, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried before a jury and convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for violation of 21 O.S. § 1040.51, Sale of a Magazine Which Shows Pictures or Photographs of Acts of…”
Hess v. State, 536 P.2d 366 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “, hereinafter referred to as defendants, were charged, tried before a jury and convicted in the District Court of Comanche County, Oklahoma, for violation of 21 O.S. § 1040.51, barter and traffic in and with a certain moving picture film of persons in acts of sexual intercourse…”
State v. Combs, 536 P.2d 1301 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “However, the projection machines and other materials confiscated which were not described within the warrant were properly suppressed.”
State Ex Rel. Field v. Hess, 540 P.2d 1165 (Okla. 1975). “21 O.S.1971 § 1040.51 reads in part: “Any person who knowingly buys, sells, barters, traffics in, * * * any picture, moving picture, series of pictures, drawing, diagram or photograph of any person or animal or caricature thereof in an act or acts of sexual intercourse or…”
McCrary v. State, 533 P.2d 629 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “8 and 21 O.S.1971, § 1040.51 in light of the language of Miller, supra, could be authoritatively construed to include the Miller requirements.”
Potter v. State, 509 P.2d 933 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “CRF 71-207, of selling and delivering an 8mm motion picture film entitled “Hotel,” said motion picture showing persons engaged in the acts of sexual intercourse, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1040.51. Punishment was fixed at two years imprisonment and a fine of $250.”
Stockton v. State, 536 P.2d 982 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “The second witness testified that she was familiar with sexually explicit material, had talked to approximately 25 persons in the community and it was her opinion that those persons of the community to whom she had talked thought that an adult ought to be able to read sexually…”
Combs v. State, 536 P.2d 373 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “OPINION BLISS, Judge: The appellant, Floyd Dale Combs, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried before a jury and convicted in the District Court of Tulsa County for violation of 21 O.S. § 1040.51, sale of a magazine which shows pictures or photographs of acts of…”
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.