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

Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 927 (2026)

Repealed by Laws 1998, c. 133, § 603, eff. July 1, 1999

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

NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 603 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1954–2016 · leading case: Luna v. State, 2016 OK CR 27, 387 P.3d 956.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Luna v. State, 2016 OK CR 27, 387 P.3d 956. · cites it 2× “1) provides that the jury "may" fix punishment, we feel the statutory intent is to give the jury an opportunity to pass upon the issue of punishment whether or not so requested; and if the jury find the defendant guilty and fail to agree on the punishment, or assess a punishment…”
Leech v. State, 2003 OK CR 4, 66 P.3d 987. “2001 , § 982 (to aid in its sentencing determination, a trial court must require a presentence investigation upon conviction of certain violent felonies); 22 O.”
Scott v. State, 808 P.2d 73 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “1981, § 926, in conjunction with 22 O.S.1981, §§ 927, 928, 982 and 991a et seq, reveals that the statutory policy is that, if he requests it, a defendant has a right to have a jury recommend a sentence in the first instance.”
Williams v. State, 542 P.2d 554 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). “However, as to this latter contention we need only observe that the introductory sentence to that section makes the death penalty mandatory upon conviction, and direct attention to 22 O.S.1971, § 927, which provides : “Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail to agree…”
Reddell v. State, 543 P.2d 574 (Okla. Crim. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “” And 22 O.S.1971, § 927 provides: “Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail to agree on the punishment to be inflicted, or do not declare such punishment by their verdict, the court shall assess and declare the punishment and render the judgment accordingly.”
Elliott v. State, 753 P.2d 920 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “” Without objection from either counsel, the judge instructed the jury to continue deliberations and informed them that if they could not agree on the sentence, the court would impose punishment.”
Dean v. State, 778 P.2d 476 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989). “Although the trial judge granted a mistrial upon the jury’s inability to agree on punishment, a review of the record indicates that the trial judge was exercising his authority pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, § 927. Section 927 provides: Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and…”
Ethridge v. State, 418 P.2d 95 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966). “” Title 22 O.S.1961, § 927 further provides: “Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail to agree on the punishment to be inflicted, or do not declare such punishment by their verdict, the court shall assess and declare the punishment and render the judgment accordingly.”
McGowan v. State, 380 P.2d 274 (Okla. Crim. App. 1963). “1961 § 927: “Where the jury find a verdict of guilty, and fail, to agree on the punishment to be inflicted, or do not declare such punishment by their verdict, the court shall assess and declare the punishment and render the judgment accordingly.” (4) The sentence imposed by the…”
Spencer v. State, 275 P.2d 329 (Okla. Crim. App. 1954). “” 22 O.S.1951 § 927. In construing this statute, this court has held that where a verdict of conviction has *331 been returned by the jury but the punishment to be assessed is not set forth in the verdict, it is the duty of the court to assess and declare the punishment.”
Dorsey v. State, 487 P.2d 996 (Okla. Crim. App. 1971). “When it became apparent that the jury had reached a verdict of Manslaughter, but could not agree on punishment, it was permissible to give an additional instruction in accordance with 22 O.S.1961, § 927. We note that the defendant did not object to the additional instruction,…”
Moore v. State, 311 P.2d 825 (Okla. Crim. App. 1957). “If the defect now urged had been pointed out to the court no doubt the jury would have been directed to return to the jury room for the purpose of correcting the irregularity, and under the circumstances recited, was the irregularity in question sufficient to cause a reversal of…”
Show all 16 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.