Okla. Stat. » Title 21 — CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1704 (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 21-1704v1 (HB 2751, Laws 2016, c. 221, § 16). OS 21-1704v2 (HB 2281, Laws 2018, c. 116, § 11).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1957–2018 · leading case: Elliott v. State, 753 P.2d 920 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elliott v. State, 753 P.2d 920 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “277, § 4, now 21 O.S.Supp. 1986, § 1704 and are thus presumptively valid.”
Hung Thanh Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “1991, § 1720; and Count V, Grand Larceny in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1704, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No.”
United States v. Patillar, 595 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 1 Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1704 (2) (1997).”
State v. Cooper, 2018 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “00 is taken from the person of another; larceny in all other cases is petit larceny). ¶15 Title 21 O.S.2011, § 1717 further provides that "All animals of the dog kind, whether male or female, shall be considered the personal property of the owner thereof, for all purposes.”
Kamees v. State, 815 P.2d 1204 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Appellant raises five issues for our consideration.”
Hung Thanh Le v. State, 1998 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “1991, § 1720; and Grand Larceny in violation of 21 O.S.1991, § 1704. At the conclusion of the first stage of trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.”
Johnson v. State, 727 P.2d 965 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “00) as required by 21 O.S.Supp.1982, § 1704. *968 This Court has stated many times that even though error occurs during a trial, this alone is not sufficient to require reversal.”
Freeman v. State, 767 P.2d 1354 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “21 O.S.1981 § 1704. The jury set punishment at five (5) years’ imprisonment.”
United States v. Mason, 709 F. App'x 898 (10th Cir. 2017). “The district judge, however, concluded the ACCA applied because Mason had three prior “violent felony” convictions: (1) a 1995 juvenile adjudication for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; (2) a 2001 conviction for larceny from a person in violation of Okla. Stat. Ann.…”
Fixico v. State, 735 P.2d 580 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “21 O.S.1981, § 1704; Dodson v. State, 674 P.”
United States v. Wilfong, 528 F. App'x 814 (10th Cir. 2013). “We concluded § 1701, the statutory definition of larceny from a person, categorically described a crime of violence under the residual clause, which applied to Patillar’s conviction under Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1704, grand larceny.”
Smith v. State, 626 P.2d 1357 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “There the defendants were charged under the general statute of Grand Larceny, 21 O.S. § 1704, rather than the special statute, Larceny From a Retailer, 21 O.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.