{"data":{"id":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-21-21-701.10b","jurisdiction":"us-ok","citation":"Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 21-701.10b","heading":"Death sentence prohibited for defendants who were","body":"intellectually disabled prior to age 18 - Sentencing proceedings.\n\nA. For purposes of this section:\n\n1. \"Intellectual disability\" or \"intellectually disabled\" means\n\nsignificantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing\n\nconcurrently with significant limitations in adaptive functioning;\n\n2. \"Significant limitations in adaptive functioning\" means\n\nsignificant limitations in two or more of the following adaptive\n\nskill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills,\n\ncommunity use, self-direction, health, safety, functional academics,\n\nleisure skills and work skills; and\n\n3. \"Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning\"\n\nmeans an intelligence quotient of seventy (70) or below.\n\nB. Regardless of any provision of law to the contrary, no\n\ndefendant who is intellectually disabled shall be sentenced to\n\ndeath; provided, however, the onset of the intellectual disability\n\nmust have been manifested before the defendant attained the age of\n\neighteen (18) years.\n\nC. The defendant has the burden of production and persuasion to\n\ndemonstrate intellectual disability by showing significantly\n\nsubaverage general intellectual functioning, significant limitations\n\nin adaptive functioning, and that the onset of the intellectual\n\ndisability was manifested before the age of eighteen (18) years. An\n\nintelligence quotient of seventy (70) or below on an individually\n\nadministered, scientifically recognized standardized intelligence\n\nquotient test administered by a licensed psychiatrist or\n\npsychologist is evidence of significantly subaverage general\n\nintellectual functioning; however, it is not sufficient without\n\nevidence of significant limitations in adaptive functioning and\n\nwithout evidence of manifestation before the age of eighteen (18)\n\nyears. In determining the intelligence quotient, the standard\n\nmeasurement of error for the test administrated shall be taken into\n\naccount.\n\nHowever, in no event shall a defendant who has received an\n\nintelligence quotient of seventy-six (76) or above on any\n\nindividually administered, scientifically recognized, standardized\n\nintelligence quotient test administered by a licensed psychiatrist\n\nor psychologist, be considered intellectually disabled and, thus,\n\nshall not be subject to any proceedings under this section.\n\nD. A defendant charged with capital murder who intends to raise\n\nan intellectual disability as a bar to the death sentence shall\n\nprovide to the state notice of such intention at least ninety (90)\n\ndays after formal arraignment or within ninety (90) days after the\n\nfiling of a bill of particulars, whichever is later. The notice\n\nshall include a brief but detailed statement specifying the\n\nwitnesses, nature and type of evidence sought to be introduced. The\n\nnotice must demonstrate sufficient facts that demonstrate a good-\n\nfaith belief as to the intellectual disability of the defendant.\n\nE. The district court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to\n\ndetermine whether the defendant is intellectually disabled. If the\n\ncourt determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the\n\ndefendant is intellectually disabled, the defendant, if convicted,\n\nshall be sentenced to life imprisonment or life without parole. If\n\nthe district court determines that the defendant is not\n\nintellectually disabled, the capital trial of the offense may\n\nproceed. A request for a hearing under this section shall not waive\n\nentitlement by the defendant to submit the issue of an intellectual\n\ndisability to a jury during the sentencing phase in a capital trial\n\nif convicted of an offense punishable by death. The court's\n\ndetermination on the issue of an intellectual disability shall not\n\nbe the subject of an interlocutory appeal.\n\nF. The court shall submit a special issue to the jury as to\n\nwhether the defendant is intellectually disabled. This special\n\nissue shall be considered and answered by the jury during the\nthe sentencing phase in a capital trial\n\nif convicted of an offense punishable by death. The court's\n\ndetermination on the issue of an intellectual disability shall not\n\nbe the subject of an interlocutory appeal.\n\nF. The court shall submit a special issue to the jury as to\n\nwhether the defendant is intellectually disabled. This special\n\nissue shall be considered and answered by the jury during the\n\nsentencing stage and prior to the determination of sentence. If the\n\njury unanimously determines that the defendant is intellectually\n\ndisabled, the defendant may only be sentenced to life imprisonment\n\nor life without parole. The defendant has the burden of production\n\nand persuasion to demonstrate an intellectual disability to the jury\n\nby a preponderance of the evidence.\n\nG. If the jury determines that the defendant is not\n\nintellectually disabled or is unable to reach a unanimous decision,\n\nthe jury shall proceed to determine the existence of aggravating and\n\nmitigating factors in determining whether the sentence of death\n\nshall be imposed. In those deliberations, the jury may consider any\n\nevidence of an intellectual disability as a mitigating factor in\n\nsentencing the defendant.\n\nH. If the jury determines that the defendant is not\n\nintellectually disabled and imposes a death sentence, the trial\n\ncourt shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to\n\nthe issue of whether the determination on the issue of an\n\nintellectual disability was made under the influence of passion,\n\nprejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. The findings shall be\n\nattached as an exhibit to the report of the trial judge required\n\nunder Section 701.13 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. If the\n\ntrial court finds that the determination of an intellectual\n\ndisability was not supported by the evidence, the issue may be\n\nraised on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for\n\nconsideration as part of its mandatory sentence review.\n\nI. The standard of review for a trier of fact intellectual\n\ndisability determination shall be whether, after reviewing the\n\nevidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational\n\ntrier of fact could have found the defendant not intellectually\n\ndisabled as defined by this section, giving full deference to the\n\nfindings of the trier of fact.\n\nJ. The court shall give appropriate instructions in those cases\n\nin which evidence of the intellectual disability of the defendant\n\nrequires the consideration by the jury of the provisions of this\n\nsection.","path":["OK Code","Title 21"],"source_url":"https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os21.pdf","current_through":"2026-08-14","vintage":"open-us-law v2026.08, retrieved 2026-09-14","retrieved_at":"2026-09-14T18:32:36Z","sha256":"610b97febbf8e42020a3b0142e65aa82bb529887315fa70547dfdc6aab555a54","source_id":"us-ok","stale":false,"prev":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-21-21-701.10a","next":"us-ok/okla.-stat.-tit.-21-21-701.11"},"notice":"GroundRules: Original legal text. Not legal advice."}