Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Controlled Substance Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney? Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale is free. Attorney Cale also develops a free defense strategy plan document for you. It is custom-made for your case. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.
The state filed multiple charges of distribution of controlled dangerous substance cocaine. The defendant filed a motion to quash and set aside information. Based on the defendant’s argument and the transcript of the preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed the case. The state appealed. Here is a summary of the case. In a 1989 case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that a motion to quash for insufficient evidence was not authorized by state statute. The court held that the states appeal ruling granting a defendant’s motion to quash for insufficient evidence to not fall within the appellate procedures. The legislature changed that in 1990. Now state law provides for the filing of a motion to quash for insufficient evidence after the preliminary hearing.
Stay contended that the trial judge should not have’s sustained the defendant’s motion to quash. At the preliminary hearing, the state must present sufficient evidence to prove that a crime was committed is sufficient cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. While there is always the presumption that the state will strengthen its case at trial, evidence of the preliminary hearing this one sign with guilt and be inconsistent with innocence, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The state presented the testimony of two witnesses. One the witnesses testified to arranging a drug by between a confidential informant and the defendant. The officer is used informant on two previous buys.
Officer searched the inform his car before putting a wire on her and giving her $125 to make a purchase. Informant Joe to defendants on the weight outside in her car. From about a block away, the officer observed a woman later identified as the defendant leave the house and approach the informant. The defendant returned to the house and the informant got into the car with her. A few moments later car left in a defendant walked out of the house.
The cost to the crime of conspiracy, to essential element are required. First, the must be an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act and some overt act by one or more the parties to further the conspiracy. This can also mean to affect its purpose. The existence of a conspiracy does not need to be established by direct evidence. Proof of circumstances from which the existence of a conspiracy may be fairly inferred is sufficient. In a conspiracy prosecution, the critical question is whether the circumstances, acts, and conduct the parties are such a character that the minds of a reasonable person can conclude that an unlawful agreement exists.
Additionally, the law is well-established that where two or more persons have acted in concert in the commission of a crime, the action declarations a one collector permissible against any other collateral trial for the crime. Conspirators are responsible for all that is said and done pursuant to the conspiracy. Whether national agreement was made by the defendant in question is to be resolved by the judge or jury. In the present case, no direct evidence of an agreement between the defendant and informant was presented. However sufficient circumstantial evidence was presented upon which to base a finding that an agreement did exist. Therefore the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the judge should not have sustained the motion to quash.
Without a constitutionally impose uniform to traditional notions of federalism, some states will be different in treating particular offenses than others. The jury convicted the defendant of conspiracy to trafficking 50 pounds of marijuana. The crime of conspiracy to traffic is a very serious offense, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant argued that the government was so overly involved in these crimes to the extent that he was deprived of due process and was entrapped as a matter law.
Defendant can claimant tram it is a defense when the defendant is induced by law enforcement agents to commit a crime which he otherwise would not have committed except for the trickery of the officer. To determine whether entrapment has been established, lie must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent in the trap for the unwary criminal. Therefore, even if the defendant is induced commit a crime, he may not take advantage of the defense if he otherwise predisposed to commit it. The Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals said that police did not entrap the defendant. The court properly sent the questions to the jury. The merely furnished the defendant with an opportunity to commit these crimes. Defendant was an unwary criminal who seized the opportunity.
The defendant argued that the evidence did not show the offense of attempting to maintain a vehicle were controlled dangerous substances capped. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed. In order to successfully prosecute an accused person for an attempt a crime, the state must prove three elements. First, the prosecution must show the intent to commit a specific crime. Secondly, must show the performance of an overt act towards the commission the crime. Lastly, must show a failure to complete the crime. The case at hand, the defendant drove the truck each time he went to the hotel. This evidence alone is not sufficient to prove that the defendant intended to maintain his vehicle for the purposes of keeping or selling marijuana.
Even if the defendant’s actions had not been hindered by outside causes, the evidence failed to establish that his acts under the usual master course of events when resulted in the commission of a crime. The state must prove to following elements prosecution a person under title 63. To show the substantial purpose of the vehicle was for keeping, selling, or using controlled dangerous substances. Secondly, the prosecution must show that the activity of rising to the charges was more than a single, isolated activity. The evidence in the instant case merely demonstrates that it the defendant intended to use the vehicle to transport marijuana from one place to another. This loan is not sufficient to demonstrate a substantial purpose of the vehicle for using drugs. Consequently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction for attempting to maintain a vehicle where a controlled dangerous substance is kept.