Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.5 (2026)

Questions to be answered in determining competency

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The jury or the court, as the case may be, shall answer the following questions in determining the disposition of the person whose competency is in question: 1. Is the person incompetent to undergo further criminal proceedings at this time? If the answer is no, criminal proceedings shall be resumed. If the answer is yes, the following questions shall be answered. 2. Can the incompetency of the person be corrected within a reasonable period of time, as defined by Section 1175.1 of this title, through treatment, therapy or training? 3. Is the person incompetent because the person is intellectually disabled as defined in Section 1408 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes? 4. Is the person incompetent because the person is a person requiring treatment as defined by Section 1-103 of Title 43A of the Oklahoma Statutes? 5. If the answers to questions 3 and 4 are no, why is the defendant incompetent? 6. Is the person presently dangerous as defined in Section 1175.1 of this title if released? Added by Laws 1980, c. 336, § 5, emerg. eff. June 25, 1980. Amended by Laws 2000, c. 421, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2004, c. 106, § 4, eff. April 1, 2005; Laws 2019, c. 475, § 22, eff. Nov. 1, 2019.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–1999 · leading case: Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. State, 730 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 1175.5(1). If the defendant is found to be competent, the trial court must issue an appropriate order and “the criminal proceedings shall be resumed.”

Lambert v. State, 1999 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999). “The Legislature has also provided the protections of our competency statutes, which Appellant utilized at each trial of this case to ensure his competency to stand trial, and included the requirement for the trier of fact to answer the question “is the person mentally ill,…”

Lambert v. State, 808 P.2d 72 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “22 O.S.1981, § 1175.5. We have previously held that this determination is a question of fact and that the results of medical examinations are not dispositive.”

— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1175.5(1) — 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.