Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Experience You Need | Cale Law Office

Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? Then call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. That means he has the right kind of experience. This is a benefit to his clients. They give him high reviews and recommend him to others.

In another case, officers responded to complaints that the defendant was trespassing private property the region national force for hunting. After officer stopped the defendant, who was driving his girlfriend’s car, they saw the back of the rifle stock sticking out of and unzipped replicase on the backseat. Once he never, the officer saw him bow and arrow. The defendant said that the rifle belonged his girlfriend. When on officer removed the rifle, yes the defendant whether the rifles loaded. The defendant told him that it was. When asked why he had the rifle, the defendant said he always has a rifle on his vehicle. Prosecutors charged the defendant was being a felony possession of a firearm. At trial, the defendant claimed that he had not known his girlfriend’s rifles in her car. To prove that Moran had knowingly possessed the rifle, the prosecution relied in part on evidence they had knowingly possessed a different firearm 11 years earlier.

On appeal, the appellate court ruled that the lower court acted within its discretion in admitting the evidence. First, the appellate court explained that the prosecution offered the evidence from the proper purpose of showing defense knowledge. More specifically, it offered to show that he knowingly possessed rifle. The prior conviction, which demonstrate that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm another point in time, was also relevant to show knowledge. Because a prior conviction require the same knowledge, evidence of conviction had a tendency to make the existence of the fence on the rifle in the present case more probable that would without the evidence.

The appellate court acknowledged the use of the farm possession to prove knowledgeable is a kind of density inference. That’s because he knowingly possessed a firearm in the past. Therefore he knowingly possessed a firearm in the present case. The court approved its omission is laws attend this show something other than criminal propensity. Lastly, and considering the admissibility of evidence, it concluded that the defendant’s earlier farm possession was officially similar to have probative value improving knowledge. As in the prior case, the prosecution offered the text messages in his girlfriend’s testimony for the proper purpose of proving knowledge. And that it meant that the defendant knew the pistols inside the bedroom. If you’re looking for an aggressive criminal defense attorney, Tulsa has one. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800.

When a defendant is not the sole occupant of premises were again is found, the question of knowing position is more debatable. This weighs in favor omission despite the possibility of unfair prejudice. The defendant argued that the evidence was unduly prejudicial and that portrayed them is a black market can straighter and hostile neighbor. He downplayed the probative value of the evidence in the case. The appellate court disagreed. The defendant further contend that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction.

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant guilty be unoriginal doubt. This is looked at with reasonable inferences and in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The appellate court will analyze the sufficiency of evidence in the law on the fact of time of the trial. Measuring sufficiency of evidence of the law and jury instruction given at the trial when a similar holding. To support a conviction as charge, the prosecution and the burden of proving the unoriginal doubt that the defendant was priestly’s convicted of a felony. It also to show that he knowingly possessed a firearm in the position was in or affecting interstate commerce.

The defense on words help prove that he knew the pistol was in the apartment. They told police that they had found the pistol, the defendant was not phased. The jury correctly have you the defendant statement is an omission that he knew the pistol was in the apartment that he had full access to it there. Based on the girlfriend’s testimony, the jury can also likewise conclude that he knew where to get again. Also, the jury can
part on his text messages from earlier indicating against to trade. Then this evidence in favor of the prosecution, the appellate court concluded that the original jury can find the unoriginal doubt that the defendant knew the pistol was in the apartment and that he and the power to exercise dominion control over it.

Lastly, the defendant argued that the district court improperly instructed the jury in constructive possession with felt instruct that the defendant must have intent to exercise dominion control over the pistol. Constructive possession records with the power to control an object and intent to exercise the control. He should have been searching for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has. The defendant did not raise the jury instruction Arab for the District Court. Therefore, the court will review for plain error. The defendant must establish that the district court committed error that is plain that the error affected his substantial rights. The appellate court may then exercise his discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The appeals court will apply plain error less rigidly when viewing a potential constitutional error. When this happens because of them proper jury instruction on element of the fence violates the six amendment jury trial guarantee.

Many people are looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. They can find that by calling the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has handled numerous jury trials. He has the right kind of experience because he’s been practicing for nearly 20 years and focuses his practice on criminal defense. He gets very high reviews and you can use of the testimonials at

The appellate court agreed with the parties that the defendant satisfied the first two prongs of plain error analysis. The district court instruct the jury that constructive possession exist in a person only has the power to a given time to exercise dominion or control of an object. However, case law is clear that constructive possession also requires intent to exercise control. The district court submission of the intent element was erroneous. The error is clearly contrary to the law the time of the appeal. Where the law time of trial was settled and clearly contrary to the law of time of the appeal, is enough that an error be playing at the time of appellate consideration.