A. The punishment of death shall be carried out by the administration of a lethal quantity of a drug or drugs until death is pronounced by a licensed physician according to accepted standards of medical practice. For purposes of this subsection, the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act shall not apply to the Department of Corrections or to any person who participates in the execution or administers one or more controlled dangerous substances. B. If the execution of the sentence of death as provided in subsection A of this section is held unconstitutional by an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or is otherwise unavailable, then the sentence of death shall be carried out by nitrogen hypoxia. C. If the execution of the sentence of death as provided in subsections A and B of this section is held unconstitutional by an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or is otherwise unavailable, then the sentence of death shall be carried out by electrocution. D. If the execution of the sentence of death as provided in subsections A, B and C of this section is held unconstitutional by an appellate court of competent jurisdiction or is otherwise unavailable, then the sentence of death shall be carried out by firing squad. R.L. 1910, § 5981. Amended by Laws 1913, c. 113, p. 206, § 1; Laws 1951, p. 63, § 1, emerg. eff. May 26, 1951; Laws 1977, c. 41, § 1; Laws 2011, c. 70, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2011; Laws 2015, c. 75, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2015; Laws 2017, c. 348, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2017.
Notes of Decisions
Arthur v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 840 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 5× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1014 (2016). Utah and Oklahoma are the only states that have statutes contemplating execution by firing squad, and lethal injection is still the primary method of execution in both of those states, as it is in every state that allows for capital…”
Anthony Boyd v. Warden,Holman Corr. Facility, 856 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1014 . Thus, none of these states provide for hanging or firing squad as a primary method of execution, and they generally only make either of those methods available if certain contingencies are satisfied.”
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.2001, § 1014. This Court has not previously addressed on direct appeal a challenge to this State's lethal injection protocol.”
Eddings v. State, 616 P.2d 1159 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The Oklahoma Legislature has provided for a means of execution which will minimize pain-22 O.S.Supp. 1978, § 1014. Finally, the question of excessiveness can only be determined in the context of the particular crime.”
Ex Parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
“89-90, amending 22 O.S.1971, § 1014. 2 The amendment to said Article 43.”
Evans v. State, 914 A.2d 25 (Md. 2006).
“§ 15-187 ; Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1014 (A); S.D.”
In re: FBOP Execution Protocol Cases, 955 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
“§ 99-19-51 (1994) (similar to Maryland, but with alternative provision that “the manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be by lethal gas”); Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1014 (1994) (“Manner of inflicting punishment of death” is either “continuous, intravenous…”
Banks v. State, 701 P.2d 418 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“The sentence of death by lethal drug injection in accordance with 22 O.S.1981, § 1014 is therefore AFFIRMED.”
Pavatt v. Jones, 627 F.3d 1336 (10th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Dershwitz classified as an intermediate-acting barbiturate, would violate Oklahoma state law, which expressly requires the use of an "ultrashort-acting barbiturate" [3] in executions.”
Malicoat v. State, 2006 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
“[10] Affidavit of Warden Mike Mullin, ¶ 8 (Exhibit A). [11] Affidavit of Warden Mike Mullin, ¶ 19 (Exhibit A).”
State v. Webb, 750 A.2d 448 (Conn. 2000).
“22 (B) (1) (West 1997); Oklahoma, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 1014 (West 1986); Oregon, Or.”
Murphy v. State, 2005 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
“Moreover, the statute upon which such executions are based, 22 O.S.2001, § 1014(A), 24 has not been amended since 1977.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1014(A) — 2 cases
Murphy v. State, 2005 OK CR 25 (Okla. Crim. App. 2005).
“Moreover, the statute upon which such executions are based, 22 O.S.2001, § 1014(A), 24 has not been amended since 1977.”
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.