Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises to any executive, legislative, county, municipal, judicial, or other public officer, or any employee of the State of Oklahoma or any political subdivision thereof, including peace officers and any other law enforcement officer, or any person assuming to act as such officer, after his election or appointment, either before or after he has qualified or has taken his seat, any gift or gratuity whatever, with intent to influence his act, vote, opinion, decision, or judgment on any matter, question, cause, or proceeding which then may be pending, or may by law come or be brought before him in his official capacity, or as a consideration for any speech, work, or service in connection therewith, shall be guilty of a Class D1 felony offense punishable by imprisonment as provided for in subsections B through F of Section 20N of this title, or by a fine not exceeding Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) and imprisonment in jail not exceeding one (1) year. R.L. 1910, § 2183. Amended by Laws 1967, c. 1, § 1, emerg. eff. Feb. 1, 1967; Laws 1976, c. 41, § 1, emerg. eff. April 5, 1976; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 180, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 97, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 368, eff. Jan. 1, 2026. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 180 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Grand River Dam Auth., 720 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1986).
· cites it 4× “The alleged misbehavior may or may not be actionable pursuant to 21 O.S.1981 § 381 [8] or under the penal sanctions imposed by the Oklahoma Personnel Act, 74 O.”
United States v. Hall, 424 F. Supp. 508 (W.D. Okla. 1975).
· cites it 10× “The unlawful activity is described as a scheme to bribe Oklahoma officials in violation of 21 O.S. § 381 and for them to accept the bribe in violation of 21 O.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Demopolos, 2015 OK 50 (Okla. 2015).
“2 The first count of the Information alleged that Respondent had offered a bribe to the police officers in the form of money to release him from custody in violation of 21 O.S. § 381. The State moved to dismiss this Count and this Count was noted as dismissed in the Plea of…”
Agan v. Vaughn, 119 F.3d 1538 (11th Cir. 1997).
“”) (emphasis added); Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 381 (1997) (“Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises to any .”
Shriver v. State, 632 P.2d 420 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “CRF — 77-3144, with the crime of Bribery of a Public Official, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 381, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.”
McCormick v. State, 279 P.2d 359 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954).
“In the petition for rehearing, however, our attention has been directed to the instruction of the court wherein the court construed the information as having been brought under the provisions of 21 O.S.1951 § 381, and the jury was instructed in instruction number twelve that…”
An-Cor, Inc. v. Reherman, 835 P.2d 93 (Okla. 1992).
“Title 21 O.S. § 381 provides: “Whoever corruptly gives, offers, or promises to any .”
In the Matter of the Reinstatement of Kerr, 2015 OK 9 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 3× “¶4 On July 30, 2010, Kerr was charged with the felony offense of offering a bribe, in violation of 21 O.S. 2011 §381 5 . In April 2012, that charge was reduced under a plea agreement to a misdemeanor, obstruction of a public officer, in violation of 21 O.”
State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Demopolos, 2015 OK 50 (Okla. 2015).
· cites it 7× “2 The first count of the Information alleged that Respondent had offered a bribe to the police officers in the form of money to release him from custody in violation of 21 O.S. § 381. The State moved to dismiss this Count and this Count was noted as dismissed in the Plea of…”
Brooks v. State, 533 P.2d 639 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975).
“CRF-73-2566, for the offense of Bribery of a Public Officer in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 381. His punishment was fixed at a term of six (6) months imprisonment and a fine of Fifteen Hundred ($1500.”
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.