This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you or someone you know been charged with a crime, you want to find an attorney who is the best for your case. For representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. With Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale, you get a free initial consultation. You also get a free, custom-made defense strategy plan to take with you.

In August 2015 the defendant was charged with 13 counts of cruelty to animals. He was bound over for trial preliminary hearing on all counts. The defendant later filed a motion to quash. He alleged among of things they could only be charged with a single count of cruelty to animals as evidence showed that the dogs question were all found in one location and that the care had been abandoned for roughly the same period of time. The state file a responsive pleading to the best to quash. A hearing was held on the matter almost a year later. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge sustained the motion to quash and dismissed 12 counts. The state of Oklahoma and appealed. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

At the preliminary hearing, the states evidence showed that the defendant fry $13 food, water and adequate shelter while there confine your grove of trees on his role property. To the DOS chain simply to small mental shelters. The other were penned separately. The smell of rotting carcasses permeated the air when investigators arrived. Apollo Catalans was found nearby. Photographs of all the one time were introduced into evidence. These photos should emaciated and the hydraulics. They were separately change her pen with no food or freshwater despite sweltering July temperatures near 100 degrees. At most, small amounts of money, and drink the water were found in some of the pins and bows with running carcasses and fat were found within reach of many of the dogs.

A veterinarian examined the dogs at the scene of the that they were each in desperate need of immediate medical care. Dogs were dehydrated and desperate for water. The first to the sheet seven where near death. The veterinarian attributed this to the fact that these two dogs said the shade from a nearby tree than the others. The first chain dog was going into shock. It has changed after on a tree branch and couldn’t stand up. Given freshwater, the dog vomited it out because it gone without water for so long. Second change I was lying on side lost drifting in and out of consciousness. The stock also was suffering from seizures. Most of the DOS amount nourished and poorly conditioned. They had second eyes invisible rams. There is an indication that they had not eaten recently. Many the dogs were infested with fleas and maggots.

When the dogs later died. The veterinarian determined that there was one large piece of bone that the dog eaten. This with the over lack of fatty tissue and lack of nutrition and adequate food. She determined that all the dogs would eventually die.

The DAs office phone a separate account for each of the 13 dogs. The defendant argued that accounts of the information subjected him to multiple punishments the same offense, and therefore, was in violation of the double jeopardy clause. He also argued that a conviction on all but One would violate the statutory prohibition against double punishment for the same offense. These arguments were premised on the defendant’s interpretation of the animal cruelty statute under which he was charged. The defendant argued will be charged with a single count of cruelty to animals because the evidence of the dogs in question were all found in one location and other care had been abandoned for roughly the same period of time. The trial court noted that there is not any case on point, and granted the defendant’s motion to quash.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals look to see whether this state can appeal the first place. The state Olympian appeal if it’s authorized by one the limited instances listened statutes. Statutory authority can be enlarged. The appellate court reviewed the nature of the judgment or order below to ascertain to see if it falls within those limited exceptions. Although the defendant presented must quash asserting double jeopardy the claim was animated by the preliminary hearing evidence in his interpretation of the animal cruelty statute. Those grounds are interrelated and answer the same as question, that being whether there is sufficient evidence preliminary hearing to support the remaining counts that were dismissed, backspace. Put another way, the issue is whether the preliminary hearing evidence justified upon different discounts.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that statutes allow defendant to file a motion to quash for insufficient evidence in a felony case after preliminary hearing. The defendant must establish beyond the face of the charge that there is insufficient evidence to prove any one of the necessary elements of the offense for which the defendant is charged. The statutes establish an appeal by the state upon judgment for the defendant on a motion to quash for insufficient evidence in a felony matter. In these instances, the court reviews the trial court’s decision to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken with the proper consideration of Faxon law pertaining to the matter at issue. Abuse of discretion has also been described as clearly erroneous. At preliminary hearing, the state is required to produce sufficient evidence to establish 1) probable cause that a crime was committed, and 2) probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. Statutes would be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language. Interpreting statutory provisions, the primary concerns to give effect to the legislature’s intent. The statute at issue repeatedly uses the singular noun the animal to refer to the beneficiary the states protection from various acts of abuse and maltreatment. The clear statutory intent is to prohibit the abuse and maltreatment. There’s nothing ambiguous on this point. Here, the state filed one count for each of 13 dogs recovered on the property. The record indication that each time was simply chain depend on the property. The record supports the proposition that it started be fed and watered separately. The veterinarians determined that the dogs have been deprived of proper care. The punishment for cruelty to animals is imprisonment up to five years or jail for up to one year or a fine of $5000, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.