Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Driving Under Influence Case | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney? Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years and focuses his practice on criminal defense. Attorney Cale will develop a free defense strategy plan document for you.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the record reflected a sufficient chain of custody to probably minute blood evidence. Additionally, found that after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of driving under the influence of drugs the unoriginal doubt. The record showed that the blood test kit and the procedures used to test a blood complied with the statute. Without any evidence to the contrary, the defendant failed to show any plain error.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test without scientific foundation by expert witnesses. Results of the HGN test, found by the proper foundation, are to be considered in the same manner as other field sobriety test. These tests include walk-in turn test in the one leg stand test. The test money the deputy proper foundation was laid for the mission of the test. The deputies were qualified to administer the test. The testimony led to the test results was on offered is independent scientifically sound evidence of the defendant’s intoxication. Instead, the prosecution offered it is a physical act on the part of the defendant observed by the deputy’s contributing to the cumulative portrait of the fence intoxication.
A scientific foundation for the test is not required as field sobriety tests not based upon scientific evidence. Field sobriety tests are not a scientific test in the sense it requires a certain scientific reliability, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale therefore, as the HGN test was given in conjunction with other field sobriety test the form the basis for the officers opinion testimony, is not reversible error the appellate court also said there is no prosecutorial misconduct. Failed to challenge the constitutionality of a step statute before trial court waived all but plain error on appeal. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption that statute is constitutional. A common sense reading of the statute, there is no difficulty in concluding that the statute gives fair notice of the prescribed activity. Is also not void for vagueness on his face. A showing the original people would know that their conduct is at risk for comes to a vagueness challenge.
The record showed that the blood strong two hours of his arrest. This may a peace officer’s as to the time in a manner that the test can be sufficient proof of compliance with rules and regulations of the board testing alcohol results. Both cases results of breathalyzer test immiscible as a test was a minister within two hours arrest. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the blood test results. A district court’s evidentiary decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The defendant had effective assistance of counsel.
If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. You speak to attorney Cale, he will develop a defense strategy plan document. This is also a free service. This document will give you an outline the criminal justice process. It also shows you what steps attorney Cale will take to defend your case.
In October, an officer arrested the defendant for actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The defendant cemented to a breath test, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16. The Department of Public Safety consequently issued an order revoking the defendant’s driver’s license. The defendant reviews the order revocation. The Ministry of hearing officer held that the order of revocation should be affirmed.
The defendant filed his petition for review the trial court. At the hearing on the merits, only the arresting officer testified. On the direct examination, the arresting officer testified concerning the facts and circumstances of the arrest. He also testified about ministering the blood test on the defendant. On cross-examination, the arresting officer testified that the devices used analyze the breath sample was an older model and not the enhanced version. He said that he was not trained to Mister test on the enhance model.
The prosecution offered a certified copy the maintenance logged to demonstrate that the ministration of the appellate breath test. The one to show the procedures mandated by the statute in the board of test for alcohol and drug influence were proper. The defendant objected to the mission of the maintenance logs without the testimony cross-examination the maintenance supervisor demonstrate that the performance of all maintenance by an authorized person is mandated by the rule. The state argued that the face of the maintenance law demonstrate compliance with the role. Also said that the maintenance law was immiscible under the public record exception to the hearsay rule.
The trial court admitted the maintenance law to show that the length was kept, that the defendant was tested and that the record was kept. However, he did not admitted to show the accuracy of the similar control test results on the properly maintain device. Consequently, the trial court held that the state failed to meet its burden of proof and set aside the order revoking the driver’s license. The state filed a motion to reconsider of vacate. A chance crime court’s decision to admit the maintenance long only for the limited purpose. The trial court granted the states motion to reconsider vacate and sustained the order revocation with modification to allow the defendant to drive. The defendant appealed.