Okla. Stat. » Title 38 — JURORS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28 (2026)

Qualifications and exemptions

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

A. It is the policy of this state that all citizens qualified for jury service pursuant to this section have an obligation to serve on petit juries when summoned by the courts of this state, unless excused. B. All citizens of the United States, residing in this state, having the qualifications of electors of this state, are competent jurors to serve on all grand and petit juries within their counties; provided, that persons over seventy (70) years of age and persons who have served as a grand or petit juror during the last five (5) immediately preceding calendar years shall not be compelled to serve as jurors in this state and the court may excuse or discharge any juror drawn and summoned as a grand or petit juror if: 1. The prospective juror has a mental or physical condition that causes him or her to be incapable of performing jury service. The juror, or the juror's personal representative, shall provide the court with documentation from a physician, physician assistant, or advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice medicine verifying that a mental or physical condition renders the person unfit for jury service for a period of up to twenty-four (24) months; or 2. Jury service would cause undue or extreme physical or financial hardship to the prospective juror or a person under his or her care or supervision. A judge of the court for which the individual was called to jury service shall make undue or extreme physical or financial hardship determinations. The authority to make these determinations is delegable only to court officials or personnel who are authorized by the laws of this state to function as members of the judiciary. A person requesting to be excused based on a finding of undue or extreme physical or financial hardship shall take all actions necessary to have obtained a ruling on that request by no later than the date on which the individual is scheduled to appear for jury duty. For purposes of this section, "undue or extreme physical or financial hardship" is limited to

circumstances in which an individual would be required to abandon a person under his or her personal care or supervision due to the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate substitute caregiver during the period of participation in the jury pool or on the jury, incur costs that would have a substantial adverse impact on the payment of the individual's necessary daily living expenses or on those for whom he or she provides the principal means of support, or suffer physical hardship that would result in illness or disease. Undue or extreme physical or financial hardship does not exist solely based on the fact that a prospective juror will be required to be absent from his or her place of employment. A person requesting a judge to grant an excuse based on undue or extreme physical or financial hardship shall be required to provide the judge with documentation, such as, but not limited to, federal and state income tax returns, medical statements from licensed physicians, proof of dependency or guardianship, and similar documents, which the judge finds to clearly support the request to be excused. Failure to provide satisfactory documentation shall result in a denial of the request to be excused. After two (2) years, a person excused from jury service shall become eligible once again for qualification as a juror unless the person was excused from service permanently. A person is excused from jury service permanently only when the deciding judge determines that the underlying grounds for being excused are of a permanent nature. C. Persons who are not qualified to serve as jurors are: 1. Justices of the Supreme Court or the Court of Civil Appeals; 2. Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals or the district court; 3. Sheriffs or deputy sheriffs; 4. Municipal or state law enforcement officers employed in any county with a population of two hundred fifty-five thousand (255,000) or more; 5. Federal law enforcement officers; 6. Licensed attorneys engaged in the practice of law; 7. Persons who have been convicted of any felony or who have served a term of imprisonment in any penitentiary, state or federal, for the commission of a felony; provided, any such citizen convicted, who has been fully restored to his or her civil rights, shall be eligible to serve as a juror; and 8. Legislators during a session of the Legislature or when involved in state business. D. Jailers, or municipal or state law enforcement officers in a county with a population of less than two hundred fifty-five thousand (255,000), shall be eligible to serve on noncriminal actions only.

E. Upon his or her request, a person shall be exempt from service as a juror if the person is: 1. A member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is serving on active duty during a time of war or declared hostilities; or 2. A mother who is breast-feeding a baby. F. The district court may provide electronic resources for persons summoned for jury duty to obtain information about their jury service and to submit information to the court, including but not limited to communications via telephone, text message, electronic mail and website. The court may utilize an approved electronic jury management system to record, process, respond to, and maintain juror communications. The court clerk and the trial court administrator, under the supervision and control of the presiding judge or chief judge, or any district judge acting as his or her designee, may be authorized to make determinations regarding juror excusals, exemptions, disqualifications, postponements and deferrals. However, determinations regarding extreme physical or financial hardship shall be made as provided in paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section. G. Information provided to the court pursuant to this section by persons summoned for jury service shall be used exclusively for purposes of determining jury disqualifications or excusals. No person shall disclose, copy or permit any person to copy this information for purposes other than jury management. Added by Laws 1949, p. 282, § 11, emerg. eff. June 2, 1949. Amended by Laws 1951, p. 111, § 1, emerg. eff. May 16, 1951; Laws 1953, p. 140, § 1, emerg. eff. April 13, 1953; Laws 1957, p. 410, § 1, emerg. eff. May 13, 1957; Laws 1959, p. 173, § 1; Laws 1971, c. 253, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1971; Laws 1973, c. 204, § 3, emerg. eff. May 17, 1973; Laws 1975, c. 302, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1975; Laws 1981, c. 184, § 1; Laws 1994, c. 343, § 21, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Laws 1996, c. 308, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1996; Laws 1997, c. 2, § 3, emerg. eff. Feb. 26, 1997; Laws 2004, c. 525, § 8, eff. July 1, 2004; Laws 2005, c. 1, § 42, emerg. eff. March 15, 2005; Laws 2008, c. 339, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2008; Laws 2009, c. 10, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2009; Laws 2013, c. 168, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2013; Laws 2014, c. 15, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2014; Laws 2015, c. 242, § 11, emerg. eff. May 4, 2015; Laws 2021, c. 164, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2021; Laws 2023, c. 7, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2023. NOTE: Laws 1996, c. 97, § 17 repealed by Laws 1997, c. 2, § 26, emerg. eff. Feb. 26, 1997. Laws 2004, c. 332, § 2 repealed by Laws 2005, c. 1, § 43, emerg. eff. March 15, 2005.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2022 · leading case: Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “[4] I agree with my former colleague Judge Strubhar, who noted that a police officer who patrolled in a marked unit and made arrests "necessarily had custody of prisoners from time to time" and should be excused for cause under 38 O.S.2001, § 28. Warner, 29 P.3d at 572 n.”
Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The language of 38 O.S.1991, § 28(B), is specific and clear.”
Ochoa v. State, 1998 OK CR 41 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “¶ 17 At issue here is the provision in 38 O.S.1991, § 28, which states that "[s]heriffs or deputy sheriffs" are not qualified to *593 serve on a jury.”
Littlejohn v. State, 2004 OK CR 6 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Relying on 38 O.S.2001, § 28, [15] the trial court dismissed Leonard because it found she was not of sound mind.”
Hung Thanh Le v. State, 947 P.2d 535 (Okla. Crim. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “[15] 38 O.S.1991, § 28. The Supreme Court determined defendants were entitled to a jury representative of a fair cross section of the community in Duren v.”
Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Additionally, appellant asserts that the fair-cross-section requirement was violated by operation of 38 O.S.1981, § 28(A), which permits persons over seventy years of age to decline jury service without showing hardship or other exclusion.”
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “This proposition is without merit. In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant contends that the jury was selected pursuant to a scheme where certain cognizable classes of citizens were not part of the jury pool.”
Jackson v. State, 1998 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “38 O.S.Supp.1995, § 28(B)(6) [emphasis added].”
Pennington v. State, 913 P.2d 1356 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “In his twenty-second allegation of error, appellant contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the operation of 38 O.S.1991, § 28, which allows persons seventy years of age or older to opt out of jury service.”
Ledbetter v. Howard, 2012 OK 39 (Okla. 2012). · cites it 2× “" 38 O.S.2009 § 28. Jurors with professional or occupational expertise routinely sit on juries, and often, as in this case, they sit on cases involving an issue related to their area of expertise.”
State v. Smith, 320 P.2d 719 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958). · cites it 6× “38 O.S.1951 § 28. Simply stated, the question presented to us is was Mr.”
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “Lastly, Appellant contends that prospective juror Kelly should have been dismissed for cause pursuant to 38 O.S.1981 § 28 5 and 22 O.S.1981 § 659 6 .”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(A) — 12 cases
Sellers v. State, 809 P.2d 676 (Okla. Crim. App. 1991). “Additionally, appellant asserts that the fair-cross-section requirement was violated by operation of 38 O.S.1981, § 28(A), which permits persons over seventy years of age to decline jury service without showing hardship or other exclusion.”
Duckett v. State, 919 P.2d 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995). “This proposition is without merit. In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant contends that the jury was selected pursuant to a scheme where certain cognizable classes of citizens were not part of the jury pool.”
Fox v. State, 779 P.2d 562 (Okla. Crim. App. 1989).
Johnson v. State, 731 P.2d 993 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
Trice v. State, 853 P.2d 203 (Okla. Crim. App. 1993).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(B) — 3 cases
Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “The language of 38 O.S.1991, § 28(B), is specific and clear.”
Nickell v. State, 885 P.2d 670 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994). “Lastly, Appellant contends that prospective juror Kelly should have been dismissed for cause pursuant to 38 O.S.1981 § 28 5 and 22 O.S.1981 § 659 6 .”
Johnson v. State, 764 P.2d 197 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(B)(3) — 2 cases
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “[4] I agree with my former colleague Judge Strubhar, who noted that a police officer who patrolled in a marked unit and made arrests "necessarily had custody of prisoners from time to time" and should be excused for cause under 38 O.S.2001, § 28. Warner, 29 P.3d at 572 n.”
Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “The language of 38 O.S.1991, § 28(B), is specific and clear.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(B)(4) — 3 cases
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “[4] I agree with my former colleague Judge Strubhar, who noted that a police officer who patrolled in a marked unit and made arrests "necessarily had custody of prisoners from time to time" and should be excused for cause under 38 O.S.2001, § 28. Warner, 29 P.3d at 572 n.”
Warner v. State, 2001 OK CR 11 (Okla. Crim. App. 2001). “The language of 38 O.S.1991, § 28(B), is specific and clear.”
Rojem v. State, 2006 OK CR 7 (Okla. Crim. App. 2006).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(B)(6) — 2 cases
Jackson v. State, 1998 OK CR 39 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998). “38 O.S.Supp.1995, § 28(B)(6) [emphasis added].”
Crawford v. State, 767 P.2d 60 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(B)(d) — 1 case
Jones v. State, 2009 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009). “[4] I agree with my former colleague Judge Strubhar, who noted that a police officer who patrolled in a marked unit and made arrests "necessarily had custody of prisoners from time to time" and should be excused for cause under 38 O.S.2001, § 28. Warner, 29 P.3d at 572 n.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(C)(5) — 1 case
Hemphill v. Harbuck, 2014 OK 24 (Okla. 2014).
— Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 28(a) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Ward, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (W.D. Okla. 1999).
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.