Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 22-1164

This is the official text of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 22-1164, part of Oklahoma’s Stat. tit. 22, — part of the compiled statutory law of Oklahoma, published by the state as "Stat. tit. 22,." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.

Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Order of trial of sanity

Official statutory text

The trial of the question of insanity must proceed in the

following order:

1. The counsel for the defendant must open the case and offer

evidence in support of the allegation of insanity.

2. The counsel for the state may then open their case and offer

evidence in support thereof.

3. The parties may then respectively offer rebutting testimony

only, unless the court, for good reason, in furtherance of justice,

permit them to offer evidence upon their original case.

4. When the evidence is concluded, unless the case be submitted

to the jury on either side or on both sides, without argument, the

counsel for the state must commence, and the defendant or his

counsel may conclude the argument to the jury.

5. If the indictment be for an offense punishable with death

two counsels on each side may argue the causes to the jury, in which

case they must do so alternately. If it be for any other offense,

Oklahoma Statutes - Title 22. Criminal Procedure Page 455

the court may, in its discretion, restrict the argument to one

counsel on each side.

6. The court must then charge the jury before argument as in

other cases.

Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site

Need a lawyer in Oklahoma?

Find a Oklahoma lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the Open US Law dataset (Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.