OUJI-CR 5-50


No person may be convicted of false personation unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the defendant falsely assumed the identity of another person;

Second, the impersonation of that identity was intentional;

[Third, under that false identity the defendant subscribed/verified/ published/acknowledged/proved a written instrument;

Fourth, with the intent that the instrument be delivered/used as true].


[Third, under that false identity the defendant did any act that might have made the other person liable to (any lawsuit or prosecution)/(pay any money)/ (incur any charge/forfeiture/penalty);

Fourth, if the act had been done by the other person].


[Third, under that false identity the defendant obtained/received any benefit;

Fourth, as a result of impersonating the other person].


[Third, under that false identity the defendant received any money/property;

Fourth, knowing that it was intended to be delivered to the other person;

Fifth, with the intent to convert the money/property to (the defendant's own use)/(the use of another person who was not entitled to it); and

Sixth, the value of the money/property was (less than $1,000)/($1,000-$2,499.99)/($2,500-$14,999.99/($15,000 or more).

[A written instrument is every instrument (partly printed and partly written)/(wholly printed with a written signature thereto), and every signature of a/an individual/firm/ corporation/(officer of a firm/corporation) and every writing purporting to be such signature].


Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 2011 & Supp. 2019, §§ 1531, 1532,1625.

Notes on Use

This instruction covers the third and fourth subdivisions of 21 O.S. 1991 2011, § 1531, and 21 O.S. Supp. 2019, § 1532. The court should select among the alternatives according to the evidence at trial. For prosecutions of other types of false personation, the trial court will need to draft appropriate instructions based on the proof at trial.

Committee Comments

This Instruction follows Barkus v. State, 1996 OK CR 45, ¶ 4, 926 P.2d 312, 313, which overruled Friday v. State, 1992 OK CR 39, 833 P.2d 1257 in part. Under Barkus, no overt act is required for a conviction if the defendant obtained any benefit as a result of the false impersonation. See also Camren v. State, 1991 OK CR 75, ¶¶ 4-5, 815 P.2d 1194, 1195 (defendant falsely personated his dead brother in order to reclaim his own suspended driver's license).

The bracketed definition of "written instrument" is taken from 21 O.S. 2011, § 1625.

(2019 Supp.)