THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 24 | FEBRUARY 2026 The Legislature’s use of the word “shall” in S.B. 607 results in a mandatory directive: A victim’s statement purporting an incident of domestic abuse must be admissible in certain proceedings.7 These proceedings include pretrial or posttrial criminal and juvenile delinquent domestic abuse prosecutions. And while the Legislature’s use of the word “or” in S.B. 607 might suggest that the victim’s statement is admissible in one but not both stages of the prosecution, S.B. 607 is unlikely to be interpreted so restrictively.8 Practically, prosecutors are likely to invoke admissibility in both pretrial and posttrial proceedings. Interestingly, the statements made in a victim protection order (VPO) filing by the alleged victim are admissible by the clear language of the statute even if the VPO is abandoned or denied. S.B. 607 is inapplicable to family and domestic matters.9 Nevertheless, family law practitioners ought to be aware of and familiar with S.B. 607. Proof of domestic abuse, including the entry of a protective order or a recent domestic abuse conviction, directly and negatively affects child custody and visitation, which are often highly contested issues in family and domestic matters and can leave the litigant convicted of domestic abuse liable for the victim’s attorney’s fees for all family court proceedings.10 Though to be sure, all practitioners should be concerned that S.B. 607 raises four separate constitutional concerns. FOUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS RAISED BY S.B. 607 S.B. 607 raises four constitutional concerns: 1) It runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, 2) it undermines due process, 3) it blurs the burden for proving domestic abuse, and 4) it lacks recourse for the defendant, especially when protective orders are misused in family and domestic matters. Each of these concerns is taken in turn. Confrontation Clause The first and arguably most important constitutional concern is that S.B. 607 runs afoul of the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.11 The Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”12 The central inquiry under the confrontation clause is whether an out-of-court statement is testimonial hearsay.13 Statements are not testimonial hearsay when objective circumstances indicate the statement’s primary purpose is to enable police assistance in an ongoing emergency.14 Conversely, statements are testimonial hearsay when the statement’s primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecutions, and no ongoing emergency exists.15 When a statement is testimonial hearsay, the confrontation clause generally bars its admission unless the declarant is unavailable, and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. S.B. 607 runs afoul of the confrontation clause because the kinds of statements for which S.B. 607 mandates admissibility are, by their very nature, likely to be deemed testimonial hearsay. S.B. 607 applies to three kinds of statements: 1) statements made by the victim to law enforcement within one week of the domestic abuse incident, 2) statements made by the victim on an application for a protective order within one week of the domestic abuse incident and Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. S.B. 607 may reflect the Legislature’s effort to ‘strike a balance between fairness for the defendant and the victim witness’ to ultimately ‘reduce barriers’ for the latter.20 But a balance is not struck if the reduction of barriers for the victim witness costs the defendant their constitutional right to confrontation.21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==