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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1162 (2026)

Jury to try sanity

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order a jury to be impaneled from the jurors summoned and returned for the term, or who may be summoned by direction of the court, to inquire into the fact. R.L.1910, § 6050.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases, 1946–1984 · leading case: Dutton v. State, 674 P.2d 1134 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dutton v. State, 674 P.2d 1134 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The controlling statute at that time was 22 O.S.1971, § 1162 (now 22 O.S.1981, § 1162).”
Davis v. State, 300 P.2d 1000 (Okla. Crim. App. 1956). · cites it 4× “” From the facts that we have already recited, it has been noted that when defendant’s case was called for trial on June 14, 1955, both the State and the defense announced ready for trial, and it was not suggested by counsel for the defendant that his client was not presently…”
Koonce v. State, 456 P.2d 549 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “In support of his contention defendant cites 22 O.S.1961, § 1162, the same providing: •‘When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must order a…”
Ake v. State, 663 P.2d 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “22 O.S.1981, § 1162. The doubt referred to in the statute has been interpreted to be doubt which must arise in the trial court’s mind after an evaluation of the facts, information concerning the defendant’s insanity and motive.”
Campbell v. State, 636 P.2d 352 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “2d 646 (1946)); 22 O.S.1971, § 1162. It would be error for a trial court to find the defendant competent to stand trial based solely upon the determination that he knew right from wrong.”
Reynolds v. State, 575 P.2d 628 (Okla. Crim. App. 1978). “The authority for ordering a sanity hearing appears in 22 O.S.1971, § 1162, in pertinent part as follows: “.”
Phillips v. State, 650 P.2d 910 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1162, requires that a jury be impaneled when information is called for trial, or when the defendant is sentenced, if “a doubt arises” as to his present sanity.”
Beck v. State, 626 P.2d 327 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). “The statute upon which the appellant relies, 22 O.S.1971, § 1162, requires that a jury be impaneled when an information is called for trial or when the defendant is sentenced if “a doubt arises” as to the defendant’s present sanity.”
Dollar v. State, 674 P.2d 48 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “Next, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred in not requiring a sanity hearing after it had notice of his possible incompetence through his motion for continuance stating that he refused to aid in the preparation of his defense and his application for order of…”
Tucker v. State, 473 P.2d 332 (Okla. Crim. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “” No doubt defendant’s complaint is based upon 22 O.S.1961, § 1162, wherein it is provided : “When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court must…”
Wimberli v. State, 536 P.2d 945 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “The defendant’s complaint is apparently premised on 22 O.S.1971, § 1162, which provides for a jury hearing when a legal doubt of defendant’s sanity arises, and also on 22 O.”
Russell v. State, 528 P.2d 336 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “In raising this issue, defendant relies upon the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 1162, which provides: “When an indictment or information is called for trial, or upon conviction the defendant is brought up for judgment, if a doubt arise as to the sanity of the defendant, the court…”
Show all 25 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.