Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652 (2026)

Shooting or discharging firearm with intent to kill - Use

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

of vehicle to facilitate discharge of weapon in conscious disregard of safety of others - Assault and battery with deadly weapon, etc. A. Every person who intentionally and wrongfully shoots another with or discharges any kind of firearm, with intent to kill any

person, including an unborn child as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class A3 felony offense punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding life. B. Every person who uses any vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of any kind of firearm, crossbow or other weapon in conscious disregard for the safety of any other person or persons, including an unborn child as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class A3 felony offense punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not less than two (2) years nor exceeding life. C. Any person who commits any assault and battery upon another, including an unborn child as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, by means of any deadly weapon, or by such other means or force as is likely to produce death, or in any manner attempts to kill another, including an unborn child as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, or in resisting the execution of any legal process, shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class A3 felony offense punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding life. D. The provisions of this section shall not apply to: 1. Acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented; or 2. Acts which are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment. E. Under no circumstances shall the mother of the unborn child be prosecuted for causing the death of the unborn child unless the mother has committed a crime that caused the death of the unborn child. R.L.1910, § 2336. Amended by Laws 1955, p. 186, § 1; Laws 1977, c. 42, § 1, eff. May 11, 1977; Laws 1987, c. 58, § 1, emerg. eff. April 30, 1987; Laws 1992, c. 192, § 1, emerg. eff. May 11, 1992; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 229, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 133, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2005, c. 200, § 2, emerg. eff. May 20, 2005; Laws 2007, c. 358, § 2, eff. July 1, 2007; Laws 2025, c. 486, § 35, eff. Jan. 1, 2026. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 229 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 193 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: United States v. Burtons, 696 F. App'x 372 (10th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Burtons, 696 F. App'x 372 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 37× “For reasons not pertinent to this appeal, the district court granted relief and vacated the judgment and sentence. Burtons then pleaded guilty (again) to being a felon in possession of a firearm.”
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021). · cites it 15× “Title 21 O.S.2011, § 652 criminalizes the act of using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm in "conscious disregard for the safety of any person or persons.”
United States v. Hammons, 862 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “This case presents the question whether Oklahoma's drive-by shooting statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652 (B), qualifies as a violent felony under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).”
Burleson v. Saffle, 2002 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “[20] 21 O.S.Supp.1999, §§ 652(A), (C). [21] 21 O.”
Lee v. State, 2018 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “CF-15-2282. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for one hundred (100) years in each of Counts I and II and for life in each of Counts III and IV.”
Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “OPINION SMITH, PRESIDING JUDGE: ¶ 1 Charlie Tucker was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652, and Count III, Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) in violation of 21 O.”
United States v. Pam, 867 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “There, a panel of this court held that Oklahoma’s drive-by shooting statute, Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652 (B), qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA’s elements clause.”
Locke v. State, 943 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “7, and two counts of Use of a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, 21 O.S.Supp.1992, § 652, after a jury trial in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case Number CF-94-4538, before the Honorable Major R.”
Braun v. State, 937 P.2d 505 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “7(A or B)); Count II, Shooting with Intent to Kill (21 O.S.Supp.1987, § 652); Count III, Shooting with Intent to Kill (21 O.”
Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “: Concur FOOTNOTES 1 The State charged Appellant in Count 2 with Shooting with Intent to Kill (21 O.S.2011, § 652(A)) but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.”
Pickens v. State, 850 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “1981, § 801) (Count I); Shooting with Intent to Kill, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.S.1981, § 652) (Count II); Assault with Intent to Kill, After Former Conviction of a Felony (21 O.”
Goree v. State, 2007 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “21 O.S.1991, § 652. 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 652.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(A) — 13 cases
Lee v. State, 2018 OK CR 14 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “CF-15-2282. The jury recommended as punishment imprisonment for one hundred (100) years in each of Counts I and II and for life in each of Counts III and IV.”
Runnels v. State, 2018 OK CR 27 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “: Concur FOOTNOTES 1 The State charged Appellant in Count 2 with Shooting with Intent to Kill (21 O.S.2011, § 652(A)) but the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon.”
Browning v. State, 2006 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Burleson v. Saffle, 2002 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “[20] 21 O.S.Supp.1999, §§ 652(A), (C). [21] 21 O.”
Washington v. State, 2023 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2023).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(B) — 7 cases
Brink v. State, 2021 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021). “Title 21 O.S.2011, § 652 criminalizes the act of using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm in "conscious disregard for the safety of any person or persons.”
Burleson v. Saffle, 2002 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002). “[20] 21 O.S.Supp.1999, §§ 652(A), (C). [21] 21 O.”
Locke v. State, 943 P.2d 1090 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). “7, and two counts of Use of a Vehicle to Facilitate the Intentional Discharge of a Firearm, 21 O.S.Supp.1992, § 652, after a jury trial in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case Number CF-94-4538, before the Honorable Major R.”
State v. Delso, 298 P.3d 1192 (Okla. Crim. App. 2013).
Barnett v. State, 2011 OK CR 28 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(C) — 12 cases
Tucker v. State, 2016 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “OPINION SMITH, PRESIDING JUDGE: ¶ 1 Charlie Tucker was tried by jury and convicted of Count I, Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon in violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 652, and Count III, Obstructing an Officer (misdemeanor) in violation of 21 O.”
Bever v. State, 2020 OK CR 13 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).
Goree v. State, 2007 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). “21 O.S.1991, § 652. 21 O.S.Supp.2005, § 652.”
Florez v. State, 2010 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
Thompson v. State, 2018 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(E) — 1 case
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.