This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best criminal defense attorney, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. You’ll also receive a free, custom-made defense strategy plan developed specifically for your case.

The defendant sought to show his intoxication at the time of the crimes through a variety of evidence. He argued that the chemical test results were irrelevant, misleading and unduly prejudicial because of its remoteness in time from the crimes made it impossible to him for his level of intoxication. Therefore it left the jury to speculate a judge will instruct the jury that they must not base their decision on speculation, but from the evidence and reasonable inferences to be made from the evidence. Don’t you want the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney?

The evidence in the blood test result was relevant to show the states overall collection of evidence an investigation, which along with other evidence, tended to establish guilt. For example, a drawing of an unknown shoe print obtained from Luminol test properly was admitted in the murder trial to show thorough investigation. Even though the test was not highly probative of the defendants intoxication more than 12 hours earlier, this was an issue for the defendants cross-examination regarding the weight of evidence. Consequently, the evidence did not mislead the jury and was not unduly prejudicial.

The defendant objected to the omission of photographic evidence. The trial court has discretion concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence of her timely objection for offer proof. His pill court will not reverse unless the court’s decision was clearly erroneous or manifestly unreasonable. An abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment. It is one that is clearly against the logic and effect the facts presented. Get the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.

The defendant argued that the omission of the photograph the homicide victims, taken together as a couple during their lives, was reversible error. He argued that the statute authorizes if photo the homicide prosecution without balancing its relevance against the potential for unfair prejudice or other countervailing factors. Therefore statute violates a defendant’s due process of law. He also argued that the prosecutor denied him a fair trial when he showed the photograph jurors an opening statement. He stated that as a consequence, his death sentence must be vacated because this improper evidence was incorporated in the second stage of trial.

In 2002, the legislature made a live photograph relevant and admissible in a homicide trial when offered to show the general appearance and condition of the victim while alive. The photograph must be appropriate. If its relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, the court made excluded. The appeals court rejected a similar argument in 2006. There, the court found that the trial court submission of the photograph of the victim in life was appropriate to show his general appearance. If further held that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial or a fair sentencing proceeding as a result.

Next, the defendant argued that the prosecutor erroneously showed the challenge photograph to the jury and opening statement before it’s admission was determined. However, this display apparently passed without objection. In one case, the court disapproved of a prosecutor showing items of potential evidence and opening statement. However it is not reverse the conviction. In a 2007 case, the prosecutor’s computer presentation in its opening statement included photographs of for potential evidence. But the appeals court found that the air in both cases was harmless because the evidence was later admitted in its depiction and opening statement was consistent with this content and trial. None of the defendants could show any conceivable prejudice from the prosecutor’s display in opening statement of evidence later admitted.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the appeals court found the same in this case. That’s because the photograph of the victim shown in opening statement was promptly identified and offered into evidence during trial. It’s prejudicial impact was slight in light of the remaining evidence, further comments depiction and opening statement was consistent with its content at trial. If the prosecutor’s use of this potential evidence in opening statement could even be termed error, it was not unfairly prejudicial. Therefore it’s display during opening statement requires no relief.

The defendant’s remaining arguments concerned pictures of the victims. More specifically, he objected to photographs showing injuries to the victims. Pictures can help prove the nature and location of the wounds. Additionally, they may corroborate the testimony of witnesses. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that gruesome crime scenes make for gruesome photographs. Still, the issue is whether the proof value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Some of the photographic evidence included the following. One exhibit depicted injuries to a man’s head and face before it was cleaned. It showed a large amount of blood. Several photographic evidence exhibits should injuries to the victim’s head. Another depicted injuries to her face. The defendant complained that this exhibit was unfairly prejudicial because it showed a gaping opening to allow for pictures of the injuries, and a ruler was part of the image.

The appeals court found that all the pictures had probative value. All of them were probative of the disputed issue of the defendants intent to kill the victims, backspace. Plus they corroborated way and expert testimony. They were also germane to the issues of guilt and punishment.

Next, the defendant challenge the trial court submission of certain testimony over here certain objections. The state agreed that statements at issue were hearsay. However a claim that the testimony was admissible under a hearsay exception or did not rise to the level of plain and obvious error. First, the defendant challenge the statement made by a man to the testimony of a deputy. The deputy testified that shortly after entering the crime scene, the man told him how he was startled from his sleep bivalve voices and then heard someone say give me your wallet.

The evidence code provides for the statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that is caused by a startling event or condition is not excluded by the hearsay rule. An excited utterance must meet three foundational requirements. First the must be a startling event or condition. Secondly, the statement be related to that startling event or condition. Lastly, the statement must be made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event or condition.