Okla. Stat. » Title 22 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1089.5 (2026)

Preliminary hearing - Review of record in light most

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

favorable to state. In the event that the state appeals the ruling of the preliminary hearing magistrate ordering a defendant discharged based upon a finding of insufficiency of the evidence to establish that a felony has been committed or insufficiency of the evidence to show that there is probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a felony, the assigned judge shall determine, based upon the entire record developed before the magistrate, whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the state, is sufficient to find that a felony crime has been committed and that the defendant probably committed said crime. Added by Laws 1987, c. 162, § 5, emerg. eff. June 25, 1987.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Cheatham v. State, 900 P.2d 414 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cheatham v. State, 900 P.2d 414 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Appellant's argument concerning ex post facto application of 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1089.5 to his case was dealt with in this Court's order entered September 28, 1989, denying Appellant's Petition for Rehearing of our original ruling wherein we reversed and remanded for rehearing…”
Newton v. State, 824 P.2d 391 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Review of the other appealable types of magistrate's rulings are governed by 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1089.4, which contains similar language to Section 1089.”
Langley v. State, 813 P.2d 526 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “In his first assignment of error, Appellant contends that the district court exceeded its authority under 22 O.S.Supp. 1987, § 1089.5, and erred in allowing the State to reopen its case at preliminary hearing to present further evidence of a burglary.”
State v. Bradley State v. Brodie, 2018 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “" 22 O.S.2011, § 1089.5 ; see also Vincent , supra .”
Moss v. Dist. Court of Tulsa Cnty., 795 P.2d 103 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “We find that the magistrate erred in both his findings of fact and conclusion of law when he held the State presented insufficient evidence to show the offense of lewd molestation.”
State v. Vincent, 2016 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The standard of review, set out in 22 O.S.2011, § 1089.5, is "whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to find that a felony crime has been committed and that the defendant probably committed said crime.”
State v. Aguilar, 2024 OK CR 18 (Okla. Crim. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “3d 5, 9 (quoting 22 O.S.2011, § 1089.5). See also State v.”
State v. Bradley State v. Brodie, 2018 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “" 22 O.S.2011, § 1089.5; see also Vincent , supra .”
State v. Matthews, 808 P.2d 691 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “In its first and second assignments of error, the State contends that the magistrate and the reviewing judge on the State’s appeal did not consider the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing in the light most favorable to the State as required by 22 O.S.Supp.1987, §…”
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.