Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 432 (2026)

Accessories and principals in felony

✓ current as of July 2026

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

The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, must be prosecuted, tried and punished as principals, and no additional facts need be alleged in any indictment or information against such an accessory than are required in an indictment or information against his principal. R.L. 1910, Sec. 5757.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2023 · leading case: Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Huckaby v. State, 804 P.2d 447 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.1981, § 432. Appellant's assertion that he was convicted of "murder for hire" is meritless.”

Bowen v. State, 606 P.2d 589 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “1971, § 172, to establish that the defendant was a principal by aiding and abetting, this assignment is patently frivolous in light of 22 O.S.1971, § 432, which provides: “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between the principals in the…”

Rounds v. State, 679 P.2d 283 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “See, 22 O.S.1981, § 432. Moreover, the evidence at trial confirmed the allegation that it was the shotgun which caused the victim to part with his property.”

Moss v. State, 888 P.2d 509 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “1981, § 172; 22 O.S.1981, § 432. Thus, whether Appellant solicited Cravens to commit the murder himself or to find another to commit the murder is of no consequence; either act is a crime under § 701.”

Dunagan v. State, 734 P.2d 291 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 432 provides: The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit…”

Wilson v. State, 552 P.2d 1404 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). “Title 22 O.S.1971, § 432, provides: “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly…”

Neal v. State, 506 P.2d 936 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “” Counsel’s attention is called to 22 O.S. § 432, which provides: “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated, and all persons concerned in the commission of a…”

Howard v. City of Tulsa, 712 P.2d 797 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “22 O.S.1981, § 432. This assignment of error is without merit.”

Daugherty v. State, 640 P.2d 558 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “one of several assignments of error, the defendant contends that his conviction cannot stand since his co-principal, Jones, was convicted of First Degree Manslaughter and not murder.”

Parrott v. State, 522 P.2d 628 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “22 O.S.1971, § 432. It is, of course, necessary that there be some aiding by acts, words, or gestures, or consenting to the commission of the crime.”

Johnson v. State, 453 P.2d 390 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). “This specific assignment of error is without merit, for the Legislature, in its wisdom, enacted 22 O.S. § 432, the same providing: “The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is…”

Hayden v. State, 713 P.2d 595 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “22 O.S.1981, § 432. “[N]o additional facts need be alleged_” Id.”

Show all 20 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.