Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 742 (2026)
Accomplice, testimony of
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely show the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. R.L.1910, § 5884.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Mitchell v. State, 2016 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016).
Mitchell v. State, 2016 OK CR 21 (Okla. Crim. App. 2016). “3d 584, 590 ; 22 O.S.2011, § 742. The evidence must do more than show the circumstances or commission of the offense.”
Glossip v. State, 2007 OK CR 12 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007). “2d at 440; 22 O.S.2001, § 742. [3] Even entirely circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to corroborate an accomplice's testimony.”
Mitchell v. State, 2018 OK CR 24 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). “¶ 13 Title 22 O.S.2011, § 742 states: A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely…”
VanWoundenberg v. State, 720 P.2d 328 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 742 requires that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
Spears v. State, 900 P.2d 431 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “In his third proposition of error, Spears argues his conviction is based on the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplices Johnson, Daniels and Hensley in violation of 22 O.S.1991, § 742. In Perry v. State, 764 P.”
Fuston v. State, 2020 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020). “22 O.S.2011, § 742 ("[a] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission…”
Pink v. State, 2004 OK CR 37 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). “[18] Bryant testified, however, that Pink did not state who the inside person was, though the only person that she knew that worked there was Lisa Yahola, who she met through Pink.”
Cummings v. Sirmons, 506 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007). “In support of this contention, Cummings points to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 742 , which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the…”
Simpson v. State, 2010 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010). “” 22 O.S.2001, § 742. Rather, accomplice testimony must be corroborated with evidence, which standing alone tends to link the defendant to the commission of the crime charged.”
Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011). “22 O.S.2001, § 742. Accomplice testimony must be corroborated with evidence that, standing alone, tends to link the defendant to the commission of the crime charged.”
Jones v. State, 128 P.3d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006). “22 O.S.2001, § 742. An accomplice's testimony need not be corroborated in all material respects; the amount of corroboration required is simply "at least one material fact of *538 independent evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.”
Cummings v. State, 1998 OK CR 45 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “However, this count was dismissed at the end of the first stage of trial. [2] 21 O.S.1991, § 701.”
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.