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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 894 (2026)

Jury brought into court for information - Presence of, or

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

notice to, parties. After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony or if they desire to be informed on a point of law arising in the cause, they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon their being brought into court, the information required must be given in the presence of, or after notice to the district attorney and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called. R.L.1910, § 5913.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2022 · leading case: Reed v. State, 2016 OK CR 10, 373 P.3d 118.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reed v. State, 2016 OK CR 10, 373 P.3d 118. · cites it 5× “2D 316 AND 22 O.S.2011, § 894; II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR AN INSTRUCTION INFORMING THE JURY THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER IF CONVICTED OF LEWD MOLESTATION; and III.”
Warner v. State, 2006 OK CR 40, 550 U.S. 942. · cites it 4× “Appellant argues that even assuming the trial judge had no direct participation in conversations among jurors and non-jurors, "jurors were inappropriately exposed to an atmosphere of camaraderie and conversation between the judge, lawyers, court staff, and the State's chief…”
Martin v. State, 747 P.2d 316 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “22 O.S.1981, § 894. We agree with the appellant that there is an important distinction between having parts of testimony dispassionately read to a jury and allowing the jury to hear, and see, the entire testimony of an empathetic witness, such as a child describing a painful…”
Shultz v. State, 811 P.2d 1322 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “Relying on 22 O.S.1981, § 894, and Martin v. State, 747 P.”
Douglas v. State, 1997 OK CR 79, 951 P.2d 651. · cites it 2× “34 ¶ 105 Appellant also complains the trial court did not follow the procedures outlined in 22 O.S.1991, § 894 35 in answering *679 the jury’s question.”
Perry v. State, 893 P.2d 521 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Relying on 22 O.S. §§ 894 and 853, this Court found it was error for the trial court to communicate with the jury outside the presence of the defendant and his counsel.”
Walker v. State, 887 P.2d 301 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Title 22 O.S.1981, § 894, which sets forth the procedure trial courts must follow when jurors have a question after they have begun deliberations, does not by its terms specifically apply to the situation in Walker’s case.”
Mollett v. State, 1997 OK CR 28, 939 P.2d 1. · cites it 2× “Appellant further submits the trial court improperly failed to follow the requirements of 22 O.S.1991, § 894, which provides: After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony or if they desire to be informed on…”
Cohee v. State, 1997 OK CR 30, 942 P.2d 211. · cites it 2× “22 O.S.1991, § 894, specifically covers informing jurors on a point of law after they have retired for deliberations.”
Stevens v. State, 2018 OK CR 11, 422 P.3d 741. “See 22 O.S.2011, § 894 (allowing for additional instruction during deliberations if there be a disagreement between the jurors as to any part of the testimony "or if they desire to be informed on a point of law arising in the cause[.”
Harris v. State, 2000 OK CR 20, 13 P.3d 489. · cites it 2× “The reenactments are not testimony subject to the provisions of 22 O.S.1991, § 894. Therefore, if admitted into evidence the exhibits should be taken to the jury room for consideration with the other evidence presented.”
Givens v. State, 705 P.2d 1139 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “The provisions of 22 O.S.1981, § 894, are as follows: After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be a disagreement between them as to any part of the testimony or if *1141 they desire to be informed on a point of law arising in the cause, they must re-.”
Show all 67 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.