Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 701 (2026)

Defendant a competent witness - Comment on failure to

✓ current as of July 2026

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

testify - Presumption. In the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints and other proceedings against persons charged with the commission of a crime, offense or misdemeanor before any court or committing magistrate in this state, the person charged shall at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness, and his failure to make such request shall not create any presumption against him nor be mentioned on the trial; if commented upon by counsel it shall be ground for a new trial. R.L.1910, § 5881.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases, 1956–2014 · leading case: Hays v. State, 617 P.2d 223 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hays v. State, 617 P.2d 223 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “It is argued that these remarks were comments on the appellant’s failure to take the witness stand and violated the provisions of 22 O.S.1971, § 701. We disagree. The record indicates that on several occasions in his closing argument the prosecutor argued that the State’s…”

Driskell v. State, 659 P.2d 343 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “During his opening remarks to the jury panel, the trial judge told the prospective jurors that the burden of proof lay entirely with the State to prove the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the appellant did not have to say anything or to present any evidence.”

Green v. State, 611 P.2d 262 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “The applicable statute, 22 O.S.1971, § 701, 1 provides that a defendant’s failure to testify shall not be mentioned at trial, but if commented upon by counsel is a ground for a new trial.”

Hanf v. State, 560 P.2d 207 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “Under the authority of 22 O.S.1971, § 701, 12 this Court has granted a new trial to a defendant who was convicted af *212 ter the trial court, over defendant’s objections, gave an .”

Robison v. State, 677 P.2d 1080 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984). “Appellant also complains of statements made during closing argument, which he alleges were comments on his failure to take the stand in contravention of 22 O.S.1981, § 701. We have read the closing argument and are of the opinion that the comments were no more than reasonable…”

Hayes v. State, 738 P.2d 533 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Appellant cites 22 O.S.1981, § 701 as authority for this alleged error.”

Duckworth v. State, 309 P.2d 1103 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “” The pertinent portion of 22 O.S.1951 § 701, that we have hereinbefore quoted (and relied on in the majority opinion as a basis for their ruling) only forbids an accused being required to come to the witness stand and testify — to give oral testimony— and his failure to testify…”

Howell v. Trammell, 728 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2013). “2d at 1090 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 701 ). The OCCA explained, “[I]t would have resulted in prejudicial error if the State had called co-defendant Watson to the stand with knowl-édge that she would invoke her privilege against self[-]incrimination.”

State v. McAboy, 236 S.E.2d 431 (W. Va. 1977). “42 (Page); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 701 , tit. 12, § 381 (West); Vt.”

Manuel Lee Runnels, Cross-Appellant v. Norman Hess, Warden, & the Attorney Gen. of the State of Oklahoma, Cross-Appellees, 653 F.2d 1359 (10th Cir. 1981). “Wainwright states that the contemporaneous objection rule, as applied to admissibility of confessions, serves a proper state purpose because it makes for a better appellate record, allows correction of errors at the trial level, thus promoting finality, and prevents sandbagging…”

Howell v. State, 882 P.2d 1086 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “See 22 O.S.1981, § 701 which provides as follows: In the trial of all indictments, informations, complaints and other proceedings against a person charged with the commission of a crime, offense or misdemeanor before any court or committing magistrate in this State, the person…”

Richardson v. State, 600 P.2d 361 (Okla. Crim. App. 1979). “See 22 O.S.1971, § 701, and Hanf v. State, Okl.”

Show all 49 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.