Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 851 (2026)

Jury may view place - Custody of sworn officer

✓ current as of July 2026

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

When, in the opinion of the court, it is proper that the jury should view the place in which the offense was charged to have been committed, or in which any other material fact occurred, it may order the jury to be conducted in a body, in the custody of proper officers, to the place, which must be shown to them by a person appointed by the court for that purpose, and the officers must be sworn to suffer no person to speak to or communicate with the jury, nor to do so themselves, on any subject connected with the trial, and to return them into court without unnecessary delay, or at a specified time. R.L.1910, § 5897.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1954–2011 · leading case: Movants to Quash Multicounty Grand Jury Subpoena v. Dixon, 2008 OK 36 (Okla. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Movants to Quash Multicounty Grand Jury Subpoena v. Dixon, 2008 OK 36 (Okla. 2008). · cites it 3× “Once it issues an order to convene the multicounty grand jury, the Supreme Court retains general jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the order. The question raised here-whether a multi-county grand jury has the jurisdiction to investigate illegal activity…”

Postelle v. State, 267 P.3d 114 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “2d 1374, 1377 (allowing jurors to view place of offense is within discretion of district court and is governed by 22 O.S., § 851). He complains that: 1) the crime seene was in a materially different condition than at the time of the murders; 2) a crime seene technical…”

Chaney v. State, 612 P.2d 269 (Okla. Crim. App. 1980). “Visits by a jury to the scene of the crime are permitted by 22 O.S.1971, § 851. In evaluating the substitution of a videotape for such a visit, we again consider the factors affecting relevancy.”

Givens v. State, 705 P.2d 1139 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “22 O.S.1981, § 851. The appellant next alleges that the trial court committed reversible error by not calling the jury back into open court as required by 22 O.”

Suggs v. State, 509 P.2d 1374 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973). “Therefore, we find defendant’s first proposition to be without merit. Defendant’s second proposition urges that the trial court erred in not granting defendant’s application to allow the jury to view the scene of the crime.”

Galbert v. State, 278 P.2d 245 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954). “The record is wholly silent and the defendant offered no proof that the requirements of 22 O.S.1951 § 851 were not fully complied with in connection, with this incident.”

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.