Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Skilled Trial Lawyer | Cale Law Office
Are you looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer? Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. His clients give him high reviews and recommend him to others.
A jury convicted the defendant to being a felon in the possession of a firearm. On appeal, the defendant argued that the District Court made three mistakes. First, he said that it pierced its discretion by moving evidence about his possession of a different firearm during a recent sidewalk confrontation. Secondly, he argued that text messages hits in three months earlier suggesting of firms to trade were not admissible. Thirdly he said there is not enough evidence they had constructively possess a pistol apartment by knowingly having the power to exercise dominion and control over it. And lastly, he argued that the judge incompletely instructed the jury on constructive possession. The appellate court agreed, reversed the conviction and remanded the matter for new trial based on the erroneous jury instruction.
Here’s a summary the facts of the case. Police arrived in an apartment to execute a search warrant. The defendant lived in that apartment with his girlfriend. Soon after arriving, the officer saw the defendant leave the apartment and get into his girlfriend’s car. Before you try the way, the officers detained him. Criminal defense attorney Tulsa Stephen Cale says that you should never talk to police. Officers executed a search warrant at the apartment. They encountered the girlfriend and a young child. Under the mattress the master bedroom officers found documents tying the defendant to the apartment. A recent letter to him from the government agency, text documents and a recent firms the receipt were also located.
In the master bedroom closet, officers on adult males clothing consistent with the defendant size but did not find evidence of an email the site the defendant residing in the apartment. On the bedroom floor, officer saw the computer back next to the nightstand. Standing over the bag and looking down inside the front open pouch the officers could see a firearm. The officer sees the firearm. They did not find any documents or other items indicating whether the defendant’s girlfriend or someone else primarily use the back.
If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has it will aggressively represent you, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale provides quality legal representation. He is well worth the money. Clients like the fact that he communicates well with them. He likes to keep his clients apprised of the status of their case. You can’t go wrong by hiring attorney Cale.
The defendant waived his rights after receiving a Miranda warning. He admitted that he lived in the apartment with his girlfriend. When officer told the defendant officers had found a small silver automatic firearm with bankruptcy the bag in the bedroom, defendant showed no surprise that said I guess I’ll have to take charge.
Officers executed another search warrant on the cell phone seized from the defendant the day he was arrested. In the text exchange about three months before his arrest, the defendant text to someone that with her a was still for sale and asked what he could trade for it. The motor seller responded that he would trade for guns, tools, or other things. The defendant asked what kind of guns, and the motor seller responded with the time began he wanted.
Prosecutors also learned about an incident that the apartments that occurred was three weeks before they arrested the defendant. The woman and her husband were walking your dog by the defendant’s apartment building when he at least the dog on their dog. As a couple argued about the dog attack, the defendant told his girlfriend go get again. The woman went upstairs to the second-floor apartment then met the defendant at a spot halfway up the stairs. Defendant then pointed black and Gannett the couple waved it around.
The defendant filed a motion to exclude his text messages in the witnesses testimony. The prosecution contended that the disputed evidence of prior weapon position was immiscible for the purpose of the than to prove character or propensity. Namely, the one to help prove that the defendant knew the pistol was in his apartment and that he constructively possessed it. The court agreed with the prosecution. If you’re looking for an aggressive criminal defense attorney Tulsa has one. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
At trial, the parties stipulated that the defendant had a prior felony conviction and that the pistol had affected interstate commerce. The solution for the jury was whether the defendant and knowingly possessed the pistol. To prove constructive possession, the prosecution relied on the location and accessibility of the pistol on the bedroom. The defendant statement reaction when he told the police that they found the pistol. They also relied on the fence surrounding his arrest.
Defendant argued that the District Court should not have admitted the text messages from his cell phone. The appellate court reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. The appellate court will not reverse the district court’s ruling if it falls within the bounds of permissible choice and circumstances is not arbitrary, capricious whimsical. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not immiscible to prove a person’s character in order to show that a particular case the person acted in accordance with that character. However, such evidence it immiscible for the purpose such as proving intent or knowledge.
To be admissible, evidence of other crimes, wrongs,’s or ask must satisfy for conditions. First, the prosecution sought for the evidence for proper purpose. Secondly, the evidence must be relevant. Thirdly, the evidence potential for unfair prejudice must not substantially outweighed its probative value. Lastly, the district court must give proper limiting instruction if requested by the defendant.