Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152 (2026)
See the following versions:
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
OS 22-152v1 (HB 3668, Laws 2024, c. 310, § 1) OS 22-152v2 (HB 1935, Laws 2025, c. 115, § 1)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1959–2016 · leading case: Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “At the time of commission of the offense, in 1984, embezzlement was not a listed seven-year offense under 22 O.S. § 152. Embezzlement was therefore, according to the Court, subject to the catch-all three-year limitation period of § 152(G@).”
Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F. Supp. 1529 (E.D. Okla. 1995). “See Okla.Stat. tit. 22, § 152. As discussed in Part VB of this Order, A.”
Gregg v. State, 844 P.2d 867 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “22 O.S.Supp. 1983, § 152. In support of his argument that the statute of limitations barred prosecution for the vast majority of the crimes charged, appellant points to his testimony at trial.”
Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “1981, § 152: Prosecutions for the crimes of bribery, embezzlement of public money, bonds, securities, assets or property of the state or any county, school district, municipality or other subdivision thereof, or of any misappropriation of public money, bonds securities, assets…”
State v. Day, 882 P.2d 1096 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “On December 16,1992, the Appellee filed a Motion to Quash in the District Court of Wagoner County and renewed the argument that the prosecution was time barred under 22 O.S.1991, § 152. On February 9, 1993, a hearing was held before the Honorable William H.”
Williamson v. State, 812 P.2d 384 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “Here, Appellant was charged five years after the death of Debbie Carter. Therefore, not only did the evidence solely support the primary charge, but pursuant to the dictates of Spaziano , Appellant was not entitled to an instruction on first degree manslaughter as it was an…”
Tollett v. State, 2016 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “Both Cox and Day involve sex crime offenses and the application of 22 O.S. § 152, titled “Limitations in general”.”
People v. Shores, 2016 COA 129 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “5/3-5 (2015); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 152 (C) (2015).”
State v. Watkins, 837 P.2d 477 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). “” 2 Because the statutes of limitation at issue in this case, 22 O.S.1981, § 152 and its amended version, are within the criminal procedure code, we find 22 O.”
State of New Jersey v. Gary Twiggs, 135 A.3d 981 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “§ 35-41-4-2 (LexisNexis 2016), Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152 (C) (2015); "the perpetrator," 42 Pa.”
Palmer v. State, 871 P.2d 429 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “Therefore, appellant was not entitled to instructions on first or second degree manslaughter as both offenses were barred by the statute of limitations.”
Belvin v. Addison, 561 F. App'x 684 (10th Cir. 2014). “Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 152 (1997 Supp.). Lewd Molestation has been discovered “when any person (including the victim) other than the wrongdoer or someone in pari delicto with the wrongdoer has knowledge of both (i) the act and (ii) its criminal nature.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152(G) — 1 case
Cox v. State, 2006 OK CR 51 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “At the time of commission of the offense, in 1984, embezzlement was not a listed seven-year offense under 22 O.S. § 152. Embezzlement was therefore, according to the Court, subject to the catch-all three-year limitation period of § 152(G@).”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 152(H) — 1 case
Tollett v. State, 2016 OK CR 15 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
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.