The jury having been impaneled and sworn, the trial must proceed in the following order: 1. If the indictment or information is for a felony, the clerk or district attorney must read it, and state the plea of the defendant to the jury. In other cases this formality may be dispensed with. 2. The district attorney, or other counsel for the state, must open the case and offer the evidence in support of the indictment or information. 3. The defendant or defendant’s counsel shall give an opening statement immediately after the opening statement of the district attorney unless the defendant affirmatively reserves the opening statement until the district attorney has rested the state’s case. The defense may offer evidence after the close of the state’s case. 4. The parties may then, respectively, offer rebutting testimony only, unless the court for good reason, in furtherance of justice, or to correct an evident oversight, permit them to offer evidence upon their original case. 5. When the evidence is concluded, the attorneys for the prosecution may submit to the court written instructions. If the questions of law involved in the instructions are to be argued, the court shall direct the jury to withdraw during the argument, and after the argument, must settle the instructions, and may give or refuse any instructions asked, or may modify the same as he deems the law to be. Instructions refused shall be marked in writing by the judge, if modified, modification shall be shown in the instruction. When the instructions are thus settled, the jury, if sent out, shall be recalled and the court shall thereupon read the instructions to the jury. 6. Thereupon, unless the case is submitted to the jury without argument, the counsel for the state shall commence, and the defendant or his counsel shall follow, then the counsel for the state shall conclude the argument to the jury. During the argument the attorneys shall be permitted to read and comment upon the instructions as applied to the evidence given, but shall not argue
to the jury the correctness or incorrectness of the propositions of law therein contained. The court may permit one or more counsel to address the jury on the same side, and may arrange the order in which they shall speak, but shall not without the consent of the attorneys limit the time of their arguments. When the arguments are concluded, if the court be of the opinion that the jury might be misled by the arguments of counsel, he may to prevent the same further instruct the jury. All instructions given shall be in writing unless waived by both parties, and shall be filed and become a part of the record in the case. R.L.1910, § 5870. Amended by Laws 2000, c. 262, § 1, eff. July 1, 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases, 1954–2019 · leading case:
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22, 450 P.3d 933.
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22, 450 P.3d 933.
· cites it 3× “24 We noted in Cleary that while Oklahoma law provides that jury instructions "shall be in writing," see 22 O.S.2011, § 831(6), the jury was permitted, but not required, to take written copies of the instructions to the deliberation room.”
Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30, 942 P.2d 211.
· cites it 4× “22 O.S.1991, § 831 states that the court ".”
Lambert v. State, 2003 OK CR 11, 71 P.3d 30.
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.2001, § 831. [13] 54 P.3d at 570 , "Appendix A".”
Malicoat v. State, 2000 OK CR 1, 992 P.2d 383.
· cites it 2× “¶ 10 The trial court relied on 22 O.S.1991, § 831, which directs that, after the jury is sworn the district attorney must read the indictment or Information, open the State's case and offer evidence, after which the defense may open its case and offer evidence.”
Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, 942 P.2d 736.
· cites it 2× “Before addressing this issue, we note the question is not whether the jury was instructed accurately and completely. It was. The only question before us is whether the omission of a written copy of the instruction is fatal to the second-stage proceeding.”
Williamson v. State, 2018 OK CR 15, 422 P.3d 752.
“Appellant was ultimately apprehended after running about seventy-five yards.”
Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, 37 P.3d 908.
“2d 729, 731-35 , construing 22 O.S.1991, § 831(5): "In Cody v. State, [ 1961 OK CR 43 ] 361 P.”
Miller v. Mullin, 354 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2004).
“See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 831 ("Thereupon, unless the case is submitted to the jury without argument, the counsel for the state shall com-menee, and the defendant or his counsel shall follow, then the counsel for the state shall conclude the argument to the jury.”
Rojem v. State, 2009 OK CR 15, 207 P.3d 385.
· cites it 2× “Either party may raise anew objections to the admissibility of evidence admitted in previous proceedings. While the State objected to the admissibility of Wraxall's testimony on residual doubt grounds, the trial court explicitly failed to rule on that objection, and prohibited…”
Sherrick v. State, 725 P.2d 1278 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Although instructions may be required at different times during the trial to correct problems as they arise, or may at the discretion of the trial court be used to clarify issues which would tend to confuse the jury, 22 O.S.1981, § 831 which prescribes the order of trial…”
Long v. State, 2003 OK CR 14, 74 P.3d 105.
“This proposition is denied. *108 ¶ 7 Appellant asserts that he was denied the right of closing argument and cites statutory authority that requires the court to allow closing argument in a jury trial.”
Master v. State, 702 P.2d 375 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“Appellant further argues that our statutes forbid an interruption during closing argument, citing 22 O.S.1981, § 831(6) for the proposition that additional instructions to clarify the law must be presented after arguments are concluded.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 831(1): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 831(3): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 831(4): 3 cases
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 831(5): 2 cases
Frederick v. State, 2001 OK CR 34, 37 P.3d 908.
“2d 729, 731-35 , construing 22 O.S.1991, § 831(5): "In Cody v. State, [ 1961 OK CR 43 ] 361 P.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 831(6): 4 cases
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22, 450 P.3d 933.
“24 We noted in Cleary that while Oklahoma law provides that jury instructions "shall be in writing," see 22 O.S.2011, § 831(6), the jury was permitted, but not required, to take written copies of the instructions to the deliberation room.”
Cleary v. State, 1997 OK CR 35, 942 P.2d 736.
“Before addressing this issue, we note the question is not whether the jury was instructed accurately and completely. It was. The only question before us is whether the omission of a written copy of the instruction is fatal to the second-stage proceeding.”
Master v. State, 702 P.2d 375 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“Appellant further argues that our statutes forbid an interruption during closing argument, citing 22 O.S.1981, § 831(6) for the proposition that additional instructions to clarify the law must be presented after arguments are concluded.”
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.