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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 853 (2026)

Custody and conduct of jury before submission - Separation

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

- Sworn officer. The jurors sworn to try an indictment or information, may, at any time before the submission of the cause to the jury, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate, or to be kept in charge of proper officers. The officers must be sworn to keep the jurors together until the next meeting of the court, to suffer no person to speak to or communicate with them, nor to do so themselves, on any subject connected with the trial, and to return them into court at the next meeting thereof. Such officer or officers having once been duly sworn, it is not necessary that they be resworn at each recess or adjournment. An admonition to the officer and the jury shall be sufficient. R.L.1910, § 5899. Amended by Laws 1945, p. 97, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1955–2006 · leading case: Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 144 P.3d 838.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 144 P.3d 838. · cites it 2× “Appellant also contends the bailiff's conversation with the jury foreperson concerning her doctor's appointment violated § 857 as well as 22 O.”
Perry v. State, 893 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “22 O.S.1981, §§ 853, 857, 894. . In Badgwell v.”
Johnson v. State, 2004 OK CR 23, 93 P.3d 41. · cites it 2× “Defense counsel requested that the jury be sequestered and in response, the trial court reprimanded defense counsel for making "petty objections," overruled the request and recessed for the evening allowing the jurors to go home.”
Neill v. State, 896 P.2d 537 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “See also 22 O.S.1991, § 853. In Price , we held that an abuse of discretion will be found only where appellant shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the jurors were specifically exposed to media reports which were prejudicial to the appellant.”
Miller v. State, 2001 OK CR 17, 29 P.3d 1077. “See 22 O.S.1991, § 853. ¶ 26 The bottom line is Ms.”
Price v. State, 782 P.2d 143 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “See also 22 O.S.1981, § 853. An abuse of discretion will be found only where appellant shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the jurors were specifically exposed to media reports which (2) were prejudicial to the appellant.”
Tomlinson v. State, 554 P.2d 798 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). “On appeal the defense alleges four assignments of error — failure of the trial court to sequester the jury because of extensive publicity; prejudicial evidence of another crime was admitted into evidence which inflamed and outraged the jury; improper instruction; and excessive…”
Matricia v. State, 726 P.2d 900 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 853 provides in part, “The jurors sworn to try an indictment or information, may, at any time, *903 before the submission of the cause to the jury, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate, or to be kept in charge of proper officers.”
Byrd v. State, 657 P.2d 183 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “Specifically defendant alleges that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to comply with 22 O.S.1981, § 853, which requires that jurors be kept in charge of proper officers and 22 O.”
DeRonde v. State, 715 P.2d 84 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “Stevenson testified, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, that he knew Monday was serving on a jury and jokingly said, “Well, you ought not to take much time [deliberating].”
Collums v. State, 695 P.2d 872 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). “22 O.S.1981, § 853. See also Carson v. State, 529 P.”
Cooper v. State, 524 P.2d 793 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). “The record shows that prior to every recess or adjournment, the jury was duly admonished by the trial court to refrain from reading about, or discussing the case, which, under 22 O.S. § 853, is sufficient. Further, there is no record of defendant’s objection to the separation of…”
Show all 15 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.