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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 659 (2026)

Particular causes - Implied bias - Actual bias

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Particular causes of challenge are of two kinds: 1. For such a bias as when the existence of the facts is ascertained, in judgment of law disqualifies the juror, and which is known in this chapter as implied bias. 2. For the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the case, or to either party, which satisfies the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, that he cannot try the issue impartially, without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging, and which is known in this chapter as actual bias. R.L.1910, § 5858.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1, 201 P.3d 869.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1, 201 P.3d 869. · cites it 3× “should have been excused for cause for exhibiting actual bias under 22 O.S.2001, § 659(2) as she "exhibited a state of mind .”
Underwood v. State, 2011 OK CR 12, 252 P.3d 221. · cites it 2× “" 22 O.S.2001, § 659. While allegations of actual bias usually involve a perceived prejudice against one party or another, a juror may also demonstrate bias "in reference to the case," i.”
Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 17, 134 P.3d 150. · cites it 2× “[2] Under 22 O.S.2001, § 659, a juror exhibits actual bias by having a "state of mind .”
Tryon v. State, 2018 OK CR 20, 423 P.3d 617. “2011, § 659 (defining "actual bias" as "the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror, in reference to the case, or to either party, which satisfies the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, that he cannot try the issue impartially, without prejudice to the…”
Johnson v. State, 928 P.2d 309 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.1991, § 659. When the two veniremen agreed to follow the law as set forth by the judge, they no longer prejudiced the substantial Fifth Amendment right of the defendant.”
Coddington v. State, 2011 OK CR 21, 259 P.3d 833. · cites it 2× “2001, § 660 (juror bias involves relations between prospective juror and defendant, a witness, or the case itself); 22 O.S.2001, § 659 (juror bias where, in reference to the case or either party, juror's state of mind is not impartial).”
Rojem v. State, 2006 OK CR 7, 130 P.3d 287. “9 Moreover, Gregory *295 should have been excused for actual bias under 22 O.S.2001, § 659(2), for he exhibited a “state of mind .”
Grissom v. State, 2011 OK CR 3, 253 P.3d 969. “22 O.S.2001, §§ 659, 660 (challenge for cause must show either implied bias defined by statute, or express bias, i.”
Burrows v. State, 640 P.2d 533 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982). “APPENDIX B Title 22 O.S.1971, § 659, provides: Particular causes of challenge are of two kinds: 1.”
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “1981 § 28 5 and 22 O.S.1981 § 659 6 . Appellant argues that prospective juror Kelly, while not automatically disqualified by 38 O.”
Hawkins v. State, 717 P.2d 1156 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “1974) Gf 22 O.S.1981, § 659. “To expect a juror to vote against her [spouse’s] employer, [or even her spouse] and then face him on a daily basis is senseless.”
Harris v. State, 2004 OK CR 1, 84 P.3d 731. · cites it 2× “Grimes did not express any unwillingness to consider all available punishment options, nor did she express any prejudice against Appellant or in favor of the prosecution in this case.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 659(1): 1 case
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “1981 § 28 5 and 22 O.S.1981 § 659 6 . Appellant argues that prospective juror Kelly, while not automatically disqualified by 38 O.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 659(2): 4 cases
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1, 201 P.3d 869. “should have been excused for cause for exhibiting actual bias under 22 O.S.2001, § 659(2) as she "exhibited a state of mind .”
Rojem v. State, 2006 OK CR 7, 130 P.3d 287. “9 Moreover, Gregory *295 should have been excused for actual bias under 22 O.S.2001, § 659(2), for he exhibited a “state of mind .”
Harris v. State, 2004 OK CR 1, 84 P.3d 731. “Grimes did not express any unwillingness to consider all available punishment options, nor did she express any prejudice against Appellant or in favor of the prosecution in this case.”
Stewart v. State, 757 P.2d 388 (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.