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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 662 (2026)

Cause for challenge must be stated - Form and entry of

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

challenge - Juror not disqualified for having formed opinion, when. In a challenge for implied bias, one or more of the causes stated in the second preceding section must be alleged. In a challenge for actual bias, the cause stated in the second subdivision of the third preceding section must be alleged; but no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety, provided it appears to the court, upon his declaration, under oath or otherwise, that he can and will, notwithstanding such opinion, act impartially and fairly upon the matters to be submitted to him. The challenge may be oral, but must be entered upon the minutes of the court. R.L.1910, § 5861.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1967–1994 · leading case: Shapard v. State, 437 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shapard v. State, 437 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S. § 662, provides in part: "* * * no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety, provided it…”
Nauni v. State, 670 P.2d 126 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “22 O.S.1981, § 662; Shapard v. State, 437 P.”
Brown v. State, 871 P.2d 56 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “22 O.S.1981, § 662; see also Nauni v. State, 670 P.”
Workman v. State, 824 P.2d 378 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “Finally, 22 O.S.1981, § 662, provides in pertinent part: [n]o person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety,…”
Wooldridge v. State, 659 P.2d 943 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “22 O.S.1981, § 662 provides in pertinent part: No person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common notoriety, provided it…”
Moore v. State, 672 P.2d 1175 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “22 O.S.1981, § 662; Frye v. State, 606 P.”
Coates v. State, 773 P.2d 1281 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “Jurors McGee and Necessary had not heard or read media accounts of the charges against Appellant, and the remaining jurors testified that while they had either heard or read about the casé, they had not discussed it with anyone and could render an impartial verdict based upon…”
Wilkett v. State, 753 P.2d 383 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “If, as in Lashley’s situation, the juror expresses a willingness to lay aside those impressions and render a verdict based solely on the evidence, 22 O.S.1981, § 662 does not require disqualification.”
Koonce v. State, 456 P.2d 549 (Okla. Crim. App. 1969). “Title 22 O.S.1961, § 662, provides in relevant part: “* * * no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common…”
Rowbotham v. State, 542 P.2d 610 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “Title 22 O.S.1971, § 662, provides in pertinent part: “In a challenge for implied bias, one or more of the causes stated in the second preceding section must be alleged.”
Garcia v. State, 501 P.2d 1128 (Okla. Crim. App. 1972). ““Title 22 O.S.1961, § 662, provides in relevant part: ' * * * no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion upon the matter or cause to be submitted to such jury, founded upon rumor, statements in public journals, or common…”
Cooper v. State, 524 P.2d 793 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “13): “I don’t intend for any person that has read that paper to sit on this jury. I don’t think any person that has read the issue of Feb.”
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.