IN RE ADOPTION OF THE 2017 REVISIONS TO THE OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS-CRIMINAL
2017 OK CR 1
Okla. Crim. App.2017Background
- On January 17, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Committee for Preparation of Uniform Jury Instructions submitted recommended 2017 amendments to the OUJI‑CR (Second Edition).
- The Court reviewed and, pursuant to 12 O.S. § 577.2, ordered the 2017 revisions adopted by written order dated February 9, 2017.
- The order directs publication (Court website and West), distribution to district court judges, and immediate implementation statewide on the date of the order.
- Specific amended and new instructions adopted include: OUJI‑CR 1‑11; 4‑128; 4‑139; 6‑39A; 6‑39B; 7‑11; 7‑12; 8‑4; 8‑15A; 8‑46; 8‑61; 9‑45; and 10‑13.
- The order authorizes updated committee comments/notes, requires amended pages to be footnoted “(2017 Supp.)”, and commends committee members for their work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adoption of proposed OUJI‑CR revisions | Committee: revisions update and clarify criminal jury instructions and committee comments | No opposing position presented in record | Court accepted and adopted the recommended revisions under 12 O.S. § 577.2 |
| Publication and distribution method | Committee: make revisions available online and via West; distribute to district judges | No opposition | Court ordered web posting, publication by West, and distribution to judges |
| Implementation timing | Committee: implement immediately to ensure uniformity | No opposition | Court directed immediate implementation effective the date of the order |
| Inclusion of amended committee comments and notation | Committee: publish updated comments and mark amended pages “(2017 Supp.)” | No opposition | Court authorized publication of updated comments and required the “(2017 Supp.)” notation |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 223 P.3d 1014 (clarifies separate instructions when differing theories asserted in forcible oral sodomy counts)
- Hinkle v. State, 771 P.2d 232 (addresses force element and consent instruction issues for sodomy statutes)
- Post v. State, 715 P.2d 1105 (addresses constitutional/privacy limits of sodomy statute application)
- Garcia v. State, 904 P.2d 144 (error to give non‑forcible sodomy as lesser included where consent defense raised in heterosexual forcible sodomy prosecution)
- Cargle v. State, 909 P.2d 806 (source for victim‑impact instruction language and limitations)
- Bosse v. Oklahoma, 137 S. Ct. 1 (Supreme Court ruling limiting relatives’ direct recommendations for death penalty to a jury)