Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Best | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, you want the best aggressive legal representation. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 schedule your free initial consultation. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has nearly 20 years of experience and focuses his practice on criminal defense.
This is a summary of the 2004 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals case of Davis vs. State. Davis was convicted of first-degree malice murder and first-degree rape after former conviction of two felonies. The jury sentenced him to death for the murder because they found that it was especially heinous or cruel, and to 100 years for the rape. Here are the facts.
On early November morning, Davis returned home after spending some time with some friends at a local club. He found his girlfriend and their three-year-old daughter missing. He called his girlfriend’s mother to ask if she had seen them or knew where they were. She did not know. Hello, the later Davis called the mother again and asked her to go find them. The mother cannot locate her daughter and granddaughter, she went to Davis’s apartment. His girlfriend also lived there. Davis gave conflicting accounts about the events that followed once his girlfriend’s mother arrived. This includes a different version during his trial testimony. At trial, however, girlfriend Davis admitted that he stabbed his girlfriend’s mother.
During this occasion, Davison been in a car wreck. He was severely injured and was ejected from the vehicle through the front windshield. Is taken to a local hospital for treatment. Because there was now Hall older about him, was placed under arrest is blood alcohol level was tested and registered. He was transferred to another hospital for further care.
The detective interviewed him that afternoon. He was able to recount his activities at the club the night before. However, he cannot remember who drove him home. Stated that his girlfriend and his daughter were not at home when he arrived. He also remembered calling his girlfriend’s mother.
However, Davis told conflicting stories, later on, he told one story to the detective a few days after the accident. Then he told his girlfriend different story sometime later. After about the past, 10 test showed that Davis’s semen was in the mother’s China. The daughter confronted him about this at trial the defendant testified that the mother came to his apartment after she cannot locate her doctor he said that the two of them had sex, which was eventual. He touring that in the head with some object. However, he did not have any details of the stabbing and how that event occurred.
On appeal, Davis claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing testimony a state when this rebuttal because of their identity close during pretrial discovery. He that state was required to disclose all known or reasonably and including rebuttal witnesses. At the time of the appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had ruled that the language of the discovery cut embraced only those with this attend a call or as we anticipated calling in its case in chief and to review to participate defenses, said Tulsa Criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
In a previous case, the defendant tries to present a witness in this case in chief. He had no notice under the. It argued on appeal that the witness was a rebuttal witness for him no notice was required as the witness was being offered to rebut testimony presented its case in chief. The appellate court found that the witness was not a true rebuttal witness in the legal sense, noting that every defense witnesses a rebuttal witness to the state’s case. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed its position concerning notice rebuttal witnesses, stating under usual trial proceedings, rebuttals an opportunity for the state to present witnesses for whom no notice is required, to rebut the defense’s case in chief. Before the court found no modification by the enactment of the discovery code the long-standing role that states the required to endorse rebuttal witnesses.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the appellate court clarified it in on the notice wired under the discovery code. There was nothing the code that explicitly rejects revokes the long-standing rule that the state does not in to give notice rebuttal witnesses. However, it condemns are not forthcoming with the respective discovery obligations. The purpose of reciprocal discovery is to provide the adequate exchange of information to facilitate informed please, to expedite trials, minimize is or trial is, and to for the parties an opportunity for effective cross-examination the requirements of the process. Nonetheless, a holding that no notice for rebuttal witnesses.
Peter fairness, a trial court has a responsibility to determine whether propose but rebuttal witnesses are being offered to rebut evidence presented by the defense during its case in chief. In the rebuttal witness is not a bona fide rebuttal innocent but rather a witness who could and should been called in states case in chief and for him notice was given, the trial court to exclude the witness testimony upon proper objection. On the other, if rebuttal witnesses offer to rebut specific evidence presented by the defense, the trial court said admit the testimony.
When the appellate court reviews of this see challenges, it looks at direct essential evidence, getting all inferences that could be drawn from in the states favor to determine if any rest packed to found the essential elements of the crime charged the unoriginal doubt. To prove malice aforethought murder, the state to show that the defendant acted intention to take the life of another without justification. This intent can be formed instantly before committing the act. The long first designed to affect death from the fact of killing the circumstances raise doubt that such design existed. Whenever direct evidence of a person’s intent is. Jury must rely on circumstantial evidence determine the person’s intent at the time of the act of killing.
If you’re looking for an experienced defense lawyer, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 your initial consultation is free.