This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime you want an attorney who wants to fight! For aggressive representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. You’ll also get a free, custom-made defense strategy plan to take with you.
State argued that the supplemental instruction is not enough to amount to and entrapment defense instruction but is instead an explanation of the elements the crime charged. According to the state, the instruction supplemented the uniform instructions given instruction number 19 allowing the jury to find the defendant guilty if the police officer is posing as a victim. The defendant objected to this instruction preserving the alleged error for the appellate courts review. The trial court’s rulings and jury instructions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. If instructions as a whole accurately state applicable law, then there is no abuse of discretion.
In a 1929 case, the court explained that one who is instigated, induced, or Lord by officer of law or other person, for the purposes of prosecution, and the commission of a crime which he had otherwise no intention of committing may avail himself of the defense of entrapment. Instruction at issue did not instruct jurors on these elements. It merely informed the jurors at the fact that a law enforcement officer was involved in the detection or investigation of the defense of the crime charged was not a defense to that charge. This instruction, which was taken nearly the prepared and from the statute in title 21, is simply restatement of this course general explanation of what entrapment defense is not available. Specifically, the 1929 case this court explained that the principle of entrapment places no limitation on the right of officers to obtain evidence of any crime originating in the mind of another. Also an officer may, when acting good faith with a view to detecting crime, make use of deception, trickery or artifice.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the evidence showed that the detective used deception to investigate crime. That is, he represented to the defendant that he was a 12-year-old girl. Was no evidence however, that the detective instigated the encounters deliver the defendant into making a lewd or indecent proposal. To the contrary it was Benard who initiated the events leading to his the proposal to the Angela by delivering a note to the to scroll girls by them to contact him by email.
Because the instruction was an accurate seven of the law, that is a place officer may use deception to detect or investigate a crime, and because instruction was boarded by the evidence showed that a place officer use deception in the investigation the crime, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving the jury instruction.
The portion of the defendants claim containing of instruction mislead the jury to believe that it overrode portions of an additional instruction concerning the element that states that the offense requires proof that the in this and proposal was made to a child under 16 years old lacked merit to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. There was no way that the jury could have been confused by the instructions. The defendant was convicted in count one of making a lewd or indecent proposal to a child under 16 years of age by computer. He is also convicted in count two of using the pewter to commit a felony. The felony was alleged to be using a commuter to commit the crime of indecent proposal to a child. Defendant contended that the conviction some of counts violate the double jeopardy provisions of the United States in Oklahoma constitutions as well as the statutory multiple punishment prohibition. Claims of double jeopardy violations are waived when they are not raised in the trial court, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant either raised a constitutional double jeopardy claim Norse statutory multiple pools preclude who this record. He therefore waived the claims. The court will review this issue for plain error. The court had never before decided on the issue of whether making a lewd or indecent proposal to a child is he took a computer and using a computer to violate in Oklahoma statute constitute a single act not subject to separate punishments or the junk double jeopardy clause of the US Oklahoma constitutions.
Jury instruction read that the defendant to commit the crime of lewd or indecent puzzles to a child that being a felony the appellate court agreed and reverse the conviction. The defendant submitted several mitigating factors for his punishment. It several friends and other attorneys testify as to his reputation as a competent lawyer. To the people before him with respect and testimony reflects that it was also wonderful father and grandfather. Evidence also is present as to the lack of legal representation in the county. The defendant himself testified as to his history as a pilot in Vietnam. Twice he received the distinguished Flying Cross, bronze Star and the Army commendation of metal of honor.
James was charged with unlawful cultivation of marijuana. It is tried by jury convicted. The punch 10 to 10 years in prison. This was in 1977. Anyone facing a marijuana or other drug charge needs the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.
The first witness was a police officer, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Testified that he executed a search warrant on the evening of September. The officer found pot plants continually. To be 12 marijuana plants. Defendant’s mother was the owner. An officer had a brief discussion with the defendant after Miranda rights warnings were given. Defendant asked the officer where he found in the house. It also stated that several people were in the apartment. Another witness testified as to the movie leaves the plants to have them analyzed.
Defendant’s mother testified that she was the owner of the home and that her son was living in that apartment. She said that her son and his wife have been living in a her main house to to do for its in the water. Another person testified that she had visited the home on several occasions and saw marijuana plants growing in their. However the defendant’s counsel brought up on cross-examination that this witnesses has been happening promised a good deal in exchange for her testimony.
Forensic chemist testified that he performed some of several chemical determination tests on the evidence submitted by the officers. Those tests indicated that the substance was marijuana. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to offer instruction as to a lesser included offense, that being possession of a controlled dangerous substance marijuana. The crime is a misdemeanor. The appellate court disagreed. Guess next time they’ll get the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.