A challenge for implied bias may be taken for all or any of the following cases, and for no other: 1. Consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree, inclusive, to the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or to the defendant. 2. Standing in the relation of guardian and ward, attorney and client, master and servant, or landlord and tenant, or being a member of the family of the defendant, or of the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or in his employment on wages. 3. Being a party adverse to the defendant in a civil action, or having complained against, or been accused by him in a criminal prosecution. 4. Having served on the grand jury which found the indictment, or on a coroner's jury which inquired into the death of a person whose death is the subject of the prosecution. 5. Having served on a trial jury which has tried another person for the offense charged in the indictment or information. 6. Having been one of the jury formerly sworn to try the indictment or information and whose verdict was set aside, or which was discharged without a verdict, after the cause was submitted to it.
7. Having served as a juror in a civil action brought against the defendant for the act charged as an offense. 8. If the offense charged be punishable with death, the entertaining of such conscientious opinions as would preclude his finding the defendant guilty of, in which case he shall neither be permitted nor compelled to serve as a juror. R.L.1910, § 5859.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1966–2011 · leading case:
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Under the facts of this case, if the alleged relationship between Juror Scales and witness Andrews had been known, no basis for a challenge for cause under 22 O.S.2001, § 660, would have been presented.”
Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “2001, § 660 to remove a prospective juror for cause based on the panelist's opposition to the death penalty because Section 660(8) allows for the removal of only those panelists whose views on capital punishment would prevent them from finding the *137 defendant guilty.”
Davis v. State, 665 P.2d 1186 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The appellant’s third proposition addresses the excusing for cause of jurors who cannot state that they could consider the death penalty under Witherspoon vis a vis the challenge of jurors for implied bias, R.”
Coddington v. State, 2011 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.2001, § 660. Regarding capital cases the statute provides: "If the offense charged be punishable with death, the entertaining of such conscientious opinions as would preclude his finding the defendant guilty of, in which case he shall neither be permitted nor compelled to…”
Burrows v. State, 640 P.2d 533 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “III In his third assignment of error the defendant contends that 22 O.S.1971, § 660, 2 is more restrictive than the Wither-spoon rule, in that a venireman can be excused under Oklahoma law only if he or she could not find the defendant guilty as opposed to being unwilling to…”
Powell v. State, 2000 OK CR 5 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 22 O.S.1991, § 660. Reherman indicated he could consider all three possible punishments if there was a conviction, and he would vote his conscience.”
Coddington v. State, 2011 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “3d 221, 255 ; 22 O.S.2001, § 660 (juror bias involves relations between prospective juror and defendant, a witness, or the case itself); 22 O.”
Glidewell v. State, 663 P.2d 738 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “As his second assignment of error, the appellant contends that there is no basis in Oklahoma law for excluding veniremen from the jury whose views on capital punishment preclude them from considering the death penalty.”
Allison v. State, 675 P.2d 142 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “7 He further argues that the juror’s failure to disclose that information prevented him from challenging the juror for implied bias pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 660, or, in the alternative, from exercising a peremptory challenge pursuant to 22 O.”
Roubideaux v. State, 707 P.2d 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1981, § 28, as is her reliance upon our statute of implied bias based upon certain relationships, 22 O.S.1981, § 660. Appellant’s assignment must fail as well because this juror was excused by using a peremptory challenge and she has not otherwise shown prejudice.”
Underwood v. State, 2011 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“22 O.S.2001, § 660. A juror may also be excused for more subjective reasons which fall under the label of actual bias, i.”
Cook v. State, 650 P.2d 863 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.1971, § 660, 1 and 2 is relied upon for the proposition that a challenge for implied bias should have been allowed in these two instances.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 660(1) — 1 case
Cook v. State, 650 P.2d 863 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
“22 O.S.1971, § 660, 1 and 2 is relied upon for the proposition that a challenge for implied bias should have been allowed in these two instances.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 660(2) — 1 case
Roubideaux v. State, 707 P.2d 35 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“1981, § 28, as is her reliance upon our statute of implied bias based upon certain relationships, 22 O.S.1981, § 660. Appellant’s assignment must fail as well because this juror was excused by using a peremptory challenge and she has not otherwise shown prejudice.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 660(5) — 1 case
— Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 660(8) — 5 cases
Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“2001, § 660 to remove a prospective juror for cause based on the panelist's opposition to the death penalty because Section 660(8) allows for the removal of only those panelists whose views on capital punishment would prevent them from finding the *137 defendant guilty.”
Coddington v. State, 2011 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“22 O.S.2001, § 660. Regarding capital cases the statute provides: "If the offense charged be punishable with death, the entertaining of such conscientious opinions as would preclude his finding the defendant guilty of, in which case he shall neither be permitted nor compelled to…”
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.