Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1040.53 (2026)

Projectionists, ushers or cashiers excepted from

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

statutes relating to exhibit of obscene motion pictures.

The provisions of statutes of this state and the provisions of ordinances of any city prescribing a criminal penalty for exhibit of any obscene motion picture shown in a commercial theater open to the general public shall not apply to a projectionist or assistant projectionist, usher or cashier, provided he has no financial interest in the show or in its place of presentation other than regular employment as a projectionist or assistant projectionist, usher or cashier. Provided further, that such person is not acting as manager or director of such theater. The provisions of this act shall not exempt any projectionist or assistant projectionist, usher or cashier from criminal liability for any act unrelated to projection of motion pictures in a commercial theater open to the general public. Laws 1971, c. 20, § 1, emerg. eff. March 22, 1971.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1982–1996 · leading case: Trim v. State, 909 P.2d 841 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Trim v. State, 909 P.2d 841 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “This statute provides in part: The provisions of statutes of this state and the provisions of ordinances of any city prescribing a criminal penalty for exhibit of any obscene motion picture shown in a commercial theater open to the general public shall not apply to a…”

Acevedo v. State, 633 S.W.2d 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982). “1976-1977) (also stage employee, cashier, doorman, usher, stand attendant, porter); Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 1040.53 (also usher, cashier); R.”

Glenn v. State, 749 P.2d 121 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “There is no doubt in my mind but that Perry and Phelps fall within the exception to the provisions of 21 O.S.1981, § 1040.53. That statute excepts from its provisions, “.”

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.