This content was written for Cale Law Office
Everyone charged with a crime deserves attention. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation with Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. You also get a complimentary defense strategy plan.
Whether statement qualifies as an excited utterance doesn’t depend on a fixed time but on the facts and circumstances. An excited utterance does not need to be substantially contemporaneous with a startling event or condition so long as the declarant is under the stress of excitement of the time the statement is made. The deputy in this case first encountered the man when he opened the door to the home and was still somewhat engaged in the struggle with the defendant.
The deputies entered the home and briefly secured both the defendant and the man will sweep the house and trying to locate and assist the injured victims. After they secured the house, the man was released from the handcuffs. On the man was still being treated for his head injuries, the deputy asked the man what had happened. Considering the timing and circumstances of the man statements to the deputy made while he was still under the evidence stress of the startling events, the court did not find that the statements were improperly admitted.
The defendant also challenged the admission of the autopsy report during testimony for the medical examiner. He also challenges the report of a sexual assault nurse examiner concerning the examination of the victim. The defense counsel objected the trial that there reports were repetitive. When the trial objection differs from an argument on appeal, the court will look to see whether not there is plain error.
The state argued that while the exhibits were not admissible under the hearsay rule, the admission was not plain error. The medical examiner’s report was hearsay and should not have been admitted without a pertinent exception. However the report summarize the findings of the medical examiner who testified at trial. Defendant does not dispute that he killed the victims were question the accuracy of the reports.
The hearsay was consequently related to the proper testimony in cause no prejudice. The defendant’s only argument was that he was prejudiced by the sexual salt nurse examiner’s report in that it mentions a dark hair recovered from the victim’s rectal area. Given the undisputed evidence that defendant next sexual assault of the woman, this evidence could not have affected the outcome.
Additionally, the defendant argued that his conviction should be reversal or modified due to prosecutorial misconduct. Relief for prosecutorial misconduct will be granted when it effectively deprives the defendant of a fair trial or sentencing, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Prosecutorial conduct is evaluated within the context of the entire trial. The evaluation considers not only the propriety of the prosecutor’s actions, but also the strength of the evidence in the corresponding arguments of defense counsel.
The defendant argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct in presenting evidence and argument on the issue of intoxication, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant limited his objection a trial to the prosecutor’s use of records indicating defendant’s child hood toileting problems as a possible explanation for the defendant having defecated on himself the morning of the crimes. In this context, there was no reversible error the prosecutor may seek to minimize evidence presented by the defense. Looking at the rest of the prosecutor’s presentation on the issue of intoxication for plain error, the appeals court found that.
The defendant further argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the second stage of trial by commenting on the defendant’s decision to call his children as mitigation witnesses. The prosecutor said that the defendant was a bouncer. He also argued that the defendant had started bossing people around and bullying at a young age. The defendant did not object to these comments. Therefore he waived all but plain error. Attorneys are entitled to liberal freedom of speech and argument. Reversal is required only where grossly improper and unwarranted argument affects the defendant’s rights.
The prosecutor’s comments regarding the position in which the defendant had placed his children by calling them as witnesses hers the jury to avoid a purely emotional reaction to the mitigation evidence. It did not exceed the bounds of proper argument. The remaining arguments were fair comments on the evidence and the appropriateness of the death sentence. Therefore, the defendant had not shown by any plane or obvious error that the outcome of the trial is affected by the prosecutor’s conduct. In another argument, the defendant contended that testimony about his use of racial epithets during a fight violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and denied him a fair sentencing proceeding. The sentencing phase of trial, the defendant’s former girlfriend testified that while she was with the defendant one night, he jumped from the car and got into a fight with two black men. When he returned to the car, the defendant explained that those two black men were going to rape her. The defendant’s attorney new for Ms. trial after this testimony, noting that to black people were on the jury. The trial court overruled the motion instead of March the jury to disregard any racial comments that were just made.
The defendant argued that the racial comments were an evidentiary harpoon. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. An evidentiary harpoon occurs when an experienced police officer makes a voluntary, willfully jab statement injecting other crimes, which is both calculated to prejudice, and actually is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant. However, the witness here was not a professional, and he did not been checked in admissible evidence of other crimes. Furthermore, the trial court’s prompt admonition cured any error from this fleeting remark.
In another argument, the defendant contended that the death sentence must be reversed or modified because of improperly admitted victim impact evidence from the victim’s two daughters. He also argued that the victim impact testimony operates as an unconstitutional super aggravate her. The defendant failed to object to the testimony trial on these grounds. Therefore, he waived all but plain error. Evidence about the victim, physical effects of the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and the manner in which it was perpetrated in the impact on the victim’s family is immiscible in capital sentencing. The defendant contended that the victim’s testimony was improperly emphasized by the crimes impact on the emotional lives. This include evidence that the trauma and cause weight gain, high blood pressure, diabetes, insomnia, and the necessity for additional medications.