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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 401 (2026)

Requisites of indictment or information

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

The indictment or information must contain: 1. The title of the action, specifying the name of the court to which the indictment or information is presented, and the names of the parties.

2. A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of R.L.1910, § 5738.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1954–2002 · leading case: Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 401, an Information must contain a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
Miller v. State, 827 P.2d 875 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Title 22 O.S.1981, §§ 401 through 410 1 set forth the requirements for sufficiency of an indictment or Information.”
Sallahdin v. Gibson, 275 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2002). “oms, a human being, did then and there kill one Bradley Thomas Grooms by means of a firearm loaded with powder and shot, held in the hands of the said defendant and with which he fired shot into the body of the said Bradley Thomas Grooms, causing mortal wounds in the body of the…”
Brewer v. State, 650 P.2d 54 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “The information adequately met the requirements of 22 O.S.1981, § 401. The appellant was not misled as to the charges against which he had to defend himself, neither was he exposed to the possibility of being placed in jeopardy a second time for his offense.”
Pickens v. State, 885 P.2d 678 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “However, I continue to adhere to the interpretation of 22 O.S.1991, § 401 et seq., regarding sufficiency of the information as set forth in my separate opinion in Miller v.”
DeVooght v. State, 722 P.2d 705 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “” 22 O.S.1981, § 401. “Further, a criminal statute requires only reasonable certainty and the prohibited act may be characterized by a general term without the aid of definition, if that term has a settled and commonly understood meaning which doesn’t leave a person of ordinary…”
Lamb v. State, 626 P.2d 1355 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “The applicable statutes, 22 O.S.1971, § 401 and § 409, appear to require greater specificity as to what the State was referring to when it used the language “to extort a thing of value or advantage from the said Betty Chappell.”
Nunley v. State, 660 P.2d 1052 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “22 O.S.1981, § 401. We have carefully examined the information in the case at bar and conclude that the information meets the statutory requirement.”
Fish v. State, 505 P.2d 490 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S.1971, § 401, stated the requisites for an indictment or information as: “The indictment of information must contain : “1.”
Holloway v. State, 602 P.2d 218 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “A statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended is all that is required by 22 O.S.1971, § 401. The information in question certainly meets that requirement.”
Reeves v. State, 818 P.2d 495 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “An information is sufficient if it complies with the requirements of 22 O.S.1981, § 401, adequately informs the defendant of what he must be prepared to defend against and prohibits the possibility of the defendant subsequently being put in jeopardy a second time for the same…”
Hunter v. State, 637 P.2d 871 (Okla. Crim. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S.1971, § 401, provides that an information must contain a “statement of the acts constituting the offense, .”
Show all 31 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 401(2): 5 cases
Parker v. State, 917 P.2d 980 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “Pursuant to 22 O.S.1991, § 401, an Information must contain a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.”
Nutter v. State, 658 P.2d 492 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
Bartlett v. State, 733 P.2d 1350 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Cooks v. State, 560 P.2d 1019 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
Poplin v. State, 761 P.2d 905 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
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.