- Excusing endorsement. A. The district attorney shall subscribe the district attorney’s name to informations filed in the district court and endorse thereon the names and last-known addresses of all the witnesses known to the district attorney at the time of filing the same, if intended to be called by the district attorney at a preliminary examination or at trial. Thereafter, the district attorney shall also endorse thereon the names and last-known addresses of such other witnesses as may afterwards become known to the district attorney, if they are intended to be called as witnesses at a preliminary examination or at trial, at such time as the court may by rule prescribe. Upon filing of an application by the district attorney, notice to defense counsel, and hearing establishing need for witness protection or preservation of the integrity of evidence, the district court may excuse witness endorsement, or some part thereof. Such proceedings shall be conducted in camera, and the record shall be sealed and filed in the office of the district court clerk, and shall not be opened except by order of the district court. B. Notwithstanding other provisions of law, when a law enforcement officer issues a citation or ticket as the basis for a complaint or information, for a violation of law declared to be a misdemeanor, the citation or ticket shall be properly verified if: 1. The issuing officer subscribes the officer's signature on the citation, ticket or complaint to the following statement: "I, the undersigned issuing officer, hereby certify and swear that I have read the foregoing information and know the facts and contents thereof and that the facts supporting the criminal charge stated therein are true." Such a subscription by an issuing officer, in all respects, shall constitute a sworn statement, as if sworn to upon an oath administered by an official authorized by law to administer oaths; and 2. The citation or ticket states the specific facts supporting the criminal charge and the ordinance or statute alleged to be violated; or 3. A complainant verifies by oath, subscribed on the citation, ticket or complaint, that the complainant has read the information, knows the facts and contents thereof and that the facts supporting the criminal charge stated therein are true. For purpose of such an oath and subscription, any law enforcement officer of the state or of a county or municipality of the state issuing the citation, ticket or complaint shall be authorized to administer the oath to the complainant.
C. As used in this section, the term “signature” shall include a digital or electronic signature, as defined in Section 15-102 of Title 12A of the Oklahoma Statutes. R.L. 1910, § 5694. Amended by Laws 1980, c. 136, § 1, emerg. eff. April 15, 1980; Laws 1991, c. 35, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1992, c. 68, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 2004, c. 275, § 9, eff. July 1, 2004; Laws 2008, c. 179, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
34
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case:
Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).
· cites it 6× “1981, § 301, and further set forth the requisites of an Information in 22 O.S.1981, § 303. Section 303 requires the district attorney to subscribe his name to informa-tions filed in the district court, and mandates that “[a]ll informations shall be verified by the oath of the…”
Mcneely v. State, 2018 OK CR 18, 422 P.3d 1272.
· cites it 2× “¶9 District Attorneys of Oklahoma should continue to include Stand Your Ground considerations in the exercise of their general discretion and authority to decide what criminal charges should be filed.”
Thomas v. Gibson, 218 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2000).
“”); Okla Stat. tit. 22, § 303 (obligating the prosecutor to endorse, on a copy of the Information, the names and addresses of the witnesses the state intends to call at trial and providing that the prosecution may endorse additional witnesses who become known after the filing of…”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651.
“The trial court made no specific finding that its discovery order had been violated.”
Duvall v. State, 825 P.2d 621 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
“The principal statutes governing criminal discovery by the defendant in Oklahoma are 22 O.S.1981, § 303, which requires that the names and addresses of witnesses be endorsed on the information; and 22 O.”
Johnston v. State, 673 P.2d 844 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The statute which requires such endorsement is 22 O.S.1981, § 303. The witness in question is Mary Askew, a police officer who had investigated a vehicular accident in the parking lot from which T.”
Sam v. State, 510 P.2d 978 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Defendant urges in his fourth proposition that error was committed when the Information and Amended Information were not subscribed by the District Attorney as required by 22 O.S.1971, § 303, but were instead signed by the use of a rubber stamp bearing the District Attorney’s…”
Miller v. State, 827 P.2d 875 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
“1990), we held that subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases is vested in the trial court by the proper endorsement and verification of the information pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 303. In that opinion we distinguished subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be waived, and…”
Standridge v. State, 701 P.2d 761 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“Appellant claims Breckner’s name was neither endorsed on the Information, as required by 22 O.S.1981, § 303, or provided to the defense before trial, as required by Okla.”
Moss v. State, 888 P.2d 509 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).
“Appellant argues that the State failed to comply with 22 O.S.1981 § 303. The record reveals that on April 19, 1990, the trial court granted the State’s motion to endorse Ms.”
Fisher v. State, 668 P.2d 1152 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“22 O.S.1981, § 303. However, this Court has consistently held that a trial court may use its discretion to permit endorsement of witnesses even after the trial commenced.”
McCluskey v. State, 372 P.2d 623 (Okla. Crim. App. 1962).
“First the defendant asserts that the trial court committed error in permitting the County Attorney to endorse the names of additional witnesses on the information in the manner related above.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 303(B)(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.