Okla. Stat. » Title 38 — JURORS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 38, § 29 (2026)

Substantial compliance

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

Substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall be sufficient to prevent the quashing or setting aside of any indictment of a grand jury chosen hereunder, unless irregularity in drawing, summoning or impaneling the grand jury resulted in depriving a defendant of some substantial right, but such irregularity must be specifically presented to the court on or before the cause is first set for trial. A substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall be sufficient to prevent the setting aside of any verdict rendered by a jury chosen hereunder, unless the irregularity in drawing, and summoning or impaneling the same, resulted in depriving a party litigant of some substantial right; provided, however, that such irregularity must be specifically presented to the court at or before the time the jury is sworn to try the cause. Laws 1949, p. 282, § 12, emerg. eff. June 2, 1949.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases, 1959–1993 · leading case: Stuart v. State, 522 P.2d 288 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stuart v. State, 522 P.2d 288 (Okla. Crim. App. 1974). · cites it 5× “" [emphasis added] The pertinent part of 38 O.S. § 29, further provides: " Substantial compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, shall be sufficient to prevent the quashing or setting aside of any indictment of a grand jury chosen hereunder, unless irregularity in drawing,…”
Shapard v. State, 437 P.2d 565 (Okla. Crim. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “Title 38 O.S. § 29 provides in part: "* * * A substantial compliance with the provisions of this Chapter [the calling of juries], shall be sufficient to prevent the setting aside of any verdict rendered by a jury chosen hereunder, unless the irregularity in drawing, and…”
Driskell v. State, 659 P.2d 343 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983). “Such a requirement for specifically presenting to the court the basis for objection to the jury panel at or before the time the jury is sworn to try the case, is also established in 38 O.S.1981, § 29. The appellant’s failure to so comply with the requirements of the above…”
Smith v. State, 727 P.2d 1366 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). “Title 38 O.S.1981, § 29 provides, in part: A substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall be sufficient to prevent the setting aside of any verdict rendered by a jury chosen hereunder, unless the irregularity in drawing, and summoning or impaneling the same,…”
Stouffer v. State, 738 P.2d 1349 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “” Title 38 O.S.1981, § 29, provides that substantial compliance with the rules of drawing juries is adequate unless a party’s substantial rights are affected.”
Middaugh v. State, 767 P.2d 432 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). “38 O.S.1981, § 29. The party complaining that the alleged irregularity in jury selection prejudiced him has the burden of showing such prejudice before the verdict will be set aside.”
Hammers v. State, 337 P.2d 1097 (Okla. Crim. App. 1959). · cites it 2× “38 O.S.1951 § 29 requires substantial compliance with the provisions of the statutes, and this section has also come to us unaltered since statehood.”
Wilson v. State, 737 P.2d 1197 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987). “Title 38 O.S.1981, § 29 provides: "... A substantial compliance with the provisions of this chapter, shall be sufficient to prevent the setting aside of any verdict rendered by a jury chosen hereunder, unless the irreqularity in drawing, and summoning or implaneling the same,…”
Orr v. State, 764 P.2d 1362 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “1981, § 634 and 38 O.S.1981, § 29, all challenges to a jury panel must be in writing and made before a jury is sworn.”
Escobedo v. State, 545 P.2d 210 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). “See, 38 O.S.1971, § 29. There is no doubt that the statutory provisions governing the selection of a jury panel should be conscientiously followed.”
Bennett v. State, 448 P.2d 253 (Okla. Crim. App. 1968). “Under counsel’s theory this would be impossible, for the entire venire and their individual ballots would have to be sent to a particular court, and only after a jitry was selected could the remainder of the venire then be sent to another court.”
Love v. Harvey, 448 P.2d 456 (Okla. 1968). “1961, § 29, that the forced use of a peremptory challenge to excuse a juror, even if he should have been excused for cause, is not, in and of itself, sufficient ground for reversal of a judgment in accord with the verdict. We apply that principle here, and reject defendant’s…”
Show all 19 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.