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

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 173 (2026)

Accessories defined

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

All persons who, after the commission of any felony, conceal or aid the offender, with knowledge that he or she has committed a felony, and with intent that the person may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment, are accessories. In the case of murder, a person is accountable under this statute for accessory to murder if the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct committed upon the victim could foreseeably result in the death of the victim. R.L.1910, § 2105. Amended by Laws 2022, c. 9, § 2, emerg. eff. March 30, 2022.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cargle v. Mullin, 317 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2003). “Jackson’s admitted conduct in this case (assisting in wiping off fingerprints at the scene and agreeing with the others not to tell the authorities anything) made him a potential accessory under Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 173, thereby exposing him to an immediate sentence of up to…”
McFarland v. Childers, 212 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 4× “accessory after the fact, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §§ 173 , 175. See id.”
Fuston v. State, 2020 OK CR 4, 470 P.3d 306. · cites it 2× “See 21 O.S.2011, § 173 (elements of the crime of Accessory).”
Wilson v. State, 552 P.2d 1404 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “CRF-75-79, for the offense of Murder in the Second Degree; she was found guilty of the offense of Accessory to a Felony in violation of 21 O.S.1971 § 173. Her punishment was fixed at a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.”
Howard v. State, 561 P.2d 125 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Even though the State contends that Ketchum is, at most, an accessory under 21 O.S.1971, § 173, 4 this Court disagrees.”
Conover v. State, 933 P.2d 904 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “" 21 O.S.1991, § 173. Under the common law theory of parties to a crime, the participants in a criminal offense were divided into four categories: 1) principal in the first degree; 2) principal in the second degree; 3) accessory before the fact; and 4) accessory after the fact.”
State v. Truesdell, 620 P.2d 427 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “In Oklahoma, all parties to a crime are either principals or accessories after the fact. The elements of the crime of accessory after the fact are that the predicate felony be completed, that the offender have knowledge that the person she’s aiding (the principal) committed the…”
Barnett v. State, 853 P.2d 226 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). “7, or in the alternative, Accessory to First Degree Murder, in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 173, in Case No. CRF-86-480, and Arson in the Third Degree, in violation of 21 O.”
Frye v. State, 606 P.2d 599 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “The State contends, however, that Overfelt was at most an accessory pursuant to 21 O.S.1971, § 173, and therefore his testimony was sufficient to corroborate Eatmon and Moore.”
Bowen v. State, 606 P.2d 589 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “While the evidence in this case may have warranted an instruction on accessories, pursuant to 21 O.S.1971, § 173, we are of the opinion that the defendant waived error by failing to request the same.”
Faulkner v. State, 646 P.2d 1304 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “At most Kay was an accessory as defined by Title 21 O.S.1981, § 173: All persons who, after the commission of any felony, conceal or aid the offender, with knowledge that he has committed a felony, and with intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or…”
Honeycutt v. State, 834 P.2d 993 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “The most the evidence shows is that Ironside was an accessory after the fact as defined by 21 O.S.1981, § 173. We have repeatedly held that accessory testimony does not require corroboration.”
Show all 20 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.