In all cases in which the defendant is prosecuted for a second or subsequent offense, except in those cases in which former conviction is an element of the offense, the procedure shall be as follows: 1. The trial shall proceed initially as though the offense charged was the first offense; when the indictment or information is read all reference to prior offenses shall be omitted; during the trial of the case no reference shall be made nor evidence received of prior offenses except as permitted by the rules of evidence; the judge shall instruct the jury only on the offense charged; the jury shall be further instructed to determine only the guilt or innocence on the offense charged, and that punishment at this time shall not be determined by the jury; and 2. If the verdict be guilty of the offense charged, that portion of the indictment or information relating to prior offenses shall be read to the jury and evidence of prior offenses shall be received. The court shall then instruct the jury on the law relating to second and subsequent offenses, and the jury shall then retire to determine the fact of former conviction, and the punishment, as in other cases. Added by Laws 1999, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 5, § 438, eff. July 1, 1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2021 · leading case:
NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012).
NELOMS v. State, 2012 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “" Additionally, the copy of the recording that was provided to jurors for their use during deliberations had the allegedly offending statement redacted.”
Byrd v. Workman, 645 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2011).
“See Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 860.1 . As a result, when the arresting officer referenced Mr.”
Malone v. State, 2002 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “There are three categories in which the Legislature has commented on second stages in criminal trials (or aggravating and mitigating evidence): (1) the capital murder statutes; (2) 22 O.S.2001, § 860.1, codifying the second-stage procedure for sentencing hearings in cases where…”
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“3d 160 , 186 (contrasting sentencing procedure where State seeks to enhance sentence); 22 O.S.2011, § 860.1 (statutory procedure for sentencing).”
Marshall v. State, 2010 OK CR 8 (Okla. Crim. App. 2010).
“3d 243, 244 , we reiterated that where the State is not seeking the death penalty and there are no other charged offenses requiring bifurcation under 22 O.S.2001, § 860.1, bifurcation is not authorized.”
Grissom v. State, 2011 OK CR 3 (Okla. Crim. App. 2011).
“22 O.S.2001, § 860.1. He cites the need for "breathing space" between the jury's deliberations on his non-capital *986 crimes, which were charged "after former conviction," and the charge of first degree murder.”
Wood v. State, 2007 OK CR 17 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
“1991, § 860 (now 22 O.S.Supp. 1999, § 860.1) (requires a bifurcated trial for second and subsequent offenses in which evidence of former convictions is to be admitted) and 21 0.”
Durbin v. Province, 448 F. App'x 785 (10th Cir. 2011).
“Under Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 860.1, in cases where a defendant is prosecuted for a second or subsequent offense, the trial is generally conducted in two parts.”
White v. State, 2021 OK CR 29 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021).
“3d 890 ] (contrasting sentencing procedure where State seeks to enhance sentence); 22 O.S.2011, § 860.1 (statutory procedure for sentencing).”
Williams v. State, 2001 OK CR 9 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “1991 , § 860 (now 22 O.S.Supp.1999, § 860.1) (requires a bifurcated trial for second and subsequent offenses in which evidence of former convictions is to be admitted) and 21 O.”
Sanders v. State, 2015 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Any error in failing to strictly follow 22 O.S.2011, § 860.1 and the procedures set forth in Chapple v.”
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018).
“3d 160, 186 (contrasting sentencing procedure where State seeks to enhance sentence); 22 O.S.2011, § 860.1 (statutory procedure for sentencing).”
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.