A court in which a trial has been had upon an issue of fact has power to grant a new trial when a verdict has been rendered against a defendant by which his substantial rights have been prejudiced, upon his application in the following cases only: First. When the trial has been in his absence, if the charge is for a felony. Second. When the jury have received any evidence out of court, other than that resulting from a view of the premises.
Third. When the jury have separated without leave of the court, after retiring to deliberate on their verdict, and before delivering or sealing the same, if it be sealed, or have been guilty of any misconduct by which a fair and due consideration of the case has been prevented. Fourth. When the verdict has been decided by lot, or by any means other than a fair expression of opinion on the part of the jury. Fifth. When the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law, or has erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the course of the trial. Sixth. When the verdict is contrary to law or evidence. Seventh. When new evidence is discovered, material to the defendant, and which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered before the trial, or when it can be shown that the grand jury was not drawn summoned or impaneled as provided by law, and that the facts in relation thereto were unknown to the defendant or his attorney until after the trial jury in the case was sworn and were not of record. When a motion for a new trial is made on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must produce at the hearing in support thereof affidavits of witnesses, or he may take testimony in support thereof as provided in Section 5781, and if time is required by the defendant to procure such affidavits or testimony, the court may postpone the hearing of the motion for such length of time as under all the circumstances of the case may seem reasonable. The application for a new trial on the ground that the grand jury was not drawn summoned or impaneled as provided by law may be shown in like manner. R.L.1910, § 5937.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case:
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Appellant's trial counsel did not cite any of the grounds listed in 22 O.S.1991, § 952 to support his motion.”
Fuston v. State, 2020 OK CR 4 (Okla. Crim. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “We find the procedures set forth in our court rules, together with the statutory provisions for a Motion for New Trial, 22 O.S.2011, § 952 et. seq., provide defendants a sufficient mechanism to develop extra-record evidence on direct appeal.”
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
· cites it 3× “" 22 O.S.2011, § 952(7). The motion may be made within three months after the evidence is discovered, but must be filed within one year after judgment is rendered.”
McElmurry v. State, 2002 OK CR 40 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In the case of alleged juror misconduct, 22 O.S.1991, §§ 952 and 953 require a defendant to file a motion for new trial before formal sentencing, or within thirty days after sentencing for good cause shown with the permission of the trial court.”
Andrew v. State, 2007 OK CR 23 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Appellant's motion is brought pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, §§ 952 and 953, alleging newly discovered evidence.”
Malone v. State, 2002 OK CR 34 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “, insanity and those grounds that would support a motion for new trial in 22 O.S.2001, § 952. This appears to be a purely legal matter-except where there is the discovery of new evidence-and the full extent of "allocution" provided under Oklahoma law, except as set forth below.”
Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36 (Okla. Crim. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The trial court and both parties knew exactly what would happen to Ullery under the statute.”
Hale v. State, 807 P.2d 264 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “While claiming he was not the only one involved, Petitioner never offered any evidence as to the identity of any others involved in the scheme. To be grounds for a new trial, newly discovered evidence must be such that it could not reasonably have been discovered prior to trial…”
Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299 (10th Cir. 2023).
“Andrew]’s motion is brought pursuant to 22 O.S.2001, §§ 952 and 953, alleging newly discovered evidence.”
Bowen v. State, 715 P.2d 1093 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.1981, § 952. At the hearing on the motion for new trial the appellant went to great lengths to show in detail why it would have been impossible for him to have flown to Oklahoma City in time to commit the murders.”
Bias v. State, 561 P.2d 523 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” (Citations omitted) One of the grounds for a new trial under 22 O.S.1971, § 952, is as follows: “Seventh.”
Green v. State, 713 P.2d 1032 (Okla. Crim. App. 1985).
“Title 22 O.S.1981, § 952, states, in pertinent part: A court in which trial has been had upon an issue of fact has power to grant a new trial when a verdict has been rendered against a defendant by which his substantial rights have been prejudiced, upon his application in the…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 952(3): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 952(4): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 952(7): 4 cases
Harris v. State, 2019 OK CR 22 (Okla. Crim. App. 2019).
“" 22 O.S.2011, § 952(7). The motion may be made within three months after the evidence is discovered, but must be filed within one year after judgment is rendered.”
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001).
“Appellant's trial counsel did not cite any of the grounds listed in 22 O.S.1991, § 952 to support his motion.”
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.