Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Domestic Abuse | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with domestic abuse, you need 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 nearly 20 years of experience. Plus, he is right kind of experience for your case because he dedicates his practice to criminal defense.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with assault battery after former conviction of two more felonies. The jury found him guilty and sentenced him to one year in the county jail. The judge sentenced accordingly. The defendant appealed. Here’s a summary of the facts of the case.

Around 6 AM on July 5, the defendant right off the screen entered his ex-wife’s apartment 310. The defendant found his ex-wife alone the bedroom and began beating her with his fence. When a female friend intervene, the defendant struck the guest. Next wife suffered injuries including a broken cheekbone and two black eyes. At trial, the defendant argued that he was intoxicated and cannot burglarize his own dwelling.

The social appeal is whether the trial court mistakenly admitted evidence that the defendant had twice filing a protective order. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had to decide whether not the violation of a protective order is evidence of other crimes are acts. The state seeks to introduce evidence of a crime other than the one charge, it must comply with the procedures and perks. Evidence of other crimes or acts is prohibited without a recognized exception.

An act that is not a violation of the criminal law that is governed by state statute carries a stigma that he could until he prejudice and accused in the eyes of the jury. The Court of Appeals decision is held that the protection from domestic abuse act this civil in nature. However, this case does not deal with the protective order. Instead, it deals with them violation the protective order, which is a crime.

The defendant concedes that the prosecutor timely filed a perks notice. But he complaints it did not specify what exception would be relied upon for admission. There’s no such requirement and perks. The case compels the prosecutor specify the exception in which the evidence is sought to be admitted at the time the evidence is offered. On the morning of trial, during an in camera hearing on defense motion in limine, the prosecutor offered evidence to prove motive and/or intent. The judge amended to prove motive, absence of mistake, and common scheme.

Unfortunately, this defendant did not have the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer. The appellate court held that the defendants prior contacts with the victim or relevant to prove motive or intent. To demonstrate invisible connection between the other crime evidence of the charges. It did not agree that the evidence was merely queuing to have an unnecessary to support the state’s burden of proof. Further, the appeals court said that this evidence was not unduly prejudicial.

Criminal Defense Attorney Tulsa | Domestic Abuse

The defense of turning this case opened up the subject of the protective orders through his questioning. Defense counsel listed the underlying details of the violations of the protective order cross-examination the victim. Consequently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the requirement of perks were satisfied. Therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the evidence. Finally, the defendant claims the trial court failed to March the jury the time by giving a limiting instruction.

Where defendant is subject to the lack of punishment instruction and does not request a limiting instruction, he waives all but fundamental error. In another case, a girl was waiting his call for friend of her a ride home. The defendant approached her and asked her if she knows a student named Gary. She replied that she did not in turn to leave. However, the defendant grabbed turn charter backwards.

The girl screamed and the defendant what ago. He then left the school grounds. Call report the incident to the assistant principal, notify the place. The next day, an officer stopped the defendant for a traffic violation. The defendant agreed to follow the officer to the police station for questioning about the incident at school. The defendant admitted grabbing the girl, but steady did not intend to frighten or her hair. The girl identified him as the man who grabbed her.

The best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer will tell you to never talk to police. The police are looking to make an arrest. So, talking to them cannot help you. It can only hurt you. If you’re going to talk to police she should do with an attorney present. That’s because you want to protect your rights. Plus, you want to avoid arrested all possible chances. That’s when the reasons people like Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. He is both proactive and aggressive in his defense.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should of credit him for a continuance. Defendant claimed the continuance is necessary to allow him to pair for witness who was endorsed by the state the day before trial. A motion to continue hearing is directed to the sound discretion the trial court. Without an abuse of discretion, the appeals court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court. In the present case, the defendant was stopped prejudice by the testimony of a witness.

Next, the defendant argued that the state was permitted to read the verification cause of information over the objection of the defendant. In the previous case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed that was character read the verification cause of the information to the jury. However, Harold was cured by the instruction informed the jury that the information cannot be considered as evidence of guilt. The same situation applies in this case. In this case, the judge instructed the jury that it could not be considered evidence of guilt. Therefore, this instruction cured any error.

Lastly, the defendant claimed the trial court should not have allowed the victim to testified that the defendant had been at school the previous occasion. The defendant argues that such evidence is irrelevant as it merely serves to paint a defendant is a person who habitually roams around schoolyards pregnant children. At trial, the prosecution argued that such evidence was relevant to prove identity. The prosecutor stated this evidence was relevant because incident took less than one minute. Also, the defendant grabbed the girl from behind, thereby hindering her view of his face.

If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney Tulsa has to offer for domestic abuse cases, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale is a skilled criminal lawyer. He has been practicing for nearly two decades and dedicates his practice to criminal defense.