Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Experienced Representation | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a crime, you need an experienced Tulsa criminal defense attorney. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. His practice focuses on criminal defense.

The Rogers County district attorney’s office charge the defendant with furnishing alcohol to minors. The defendant filed a motion to suppress. The court held a hearing and sustained the motion, dismissing the charges. The state appealed. Here are the facts of the case.

A Highway Patrol trooper went to the house and Catoosa to the sky report of underage drinking. He drove by the house, heard law music, saw several parked cars, and saw two women sitting the porch holding caps. At that time he saw no crimes in progress. Officers look to the windows and saw at least one juvenile drinking from a Period also saw open bottles of liquor in the house. An officer entered the house and arrested the defendant.

The defendant argued that the trooper did not have authority or jurisdiction to investigate these crimes arrest and. The state argued on appeal that the officer did have authority. Title 47 governs the jurisdiction of Highway Patrol troopers. The general section does in the troopers as peace officers. The section vests them with the powers of search and seizure and invest can prevent crime.

However, the statute is not for the authority to initiate investigations crimes the trooper is not yet witnessed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said that there’s a difference between the power to arrest and the power to that the crimes. The legislature created troopers power to investigate some specific crimes and force others. The legislature did not intend to confer on troopers the broad power to investigate any crime, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

In this case, the trial court found no interdepartmental agreement between law enforcement in the Highway Patrol. The trial court also found that campus police had no jurisdiction over the location. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the campus police had no authority to investigate the alleged criminal activity in the first place. As a consequence, he had no authority to ask the trooper to investigate for them. The trooper cannot rely on the request.

The trial court correctly suppressed the information the trooper gave to the campus police. The law did not authorize the trooper to investigate this type of crime. The campus police had no interdepartmental agreement for assistance with Highway Patrol. It also had no authority to investigate the crime themselves.

A motion to suppress is a way to get evidence thrown out, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Typically the evidence that is thrown out is significant. Because it is so significant, the court typically dismisses the case because the prosecution cannot move forward without the evidence.

In a separate case, the DAs office charged the defendant with trafficking in controlled dangerous substances. Ecstasy was the substance. The jury convicted the defendant sentenced him to 30 years in prison. The defendant appealed.

On appeal, the defendant said that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of possession of a controlled dangerous substance. To be entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on simple possession must have been evidence produced a trial to get the evidence that the defendant possessed the trafficking quantity of 30 pills or 10 grams of ecstasy. The defendant is not entitled to a lesser included instruction was he can show evidence at trial the getting extra elements of overlying crime.

The evidence in this case sufficiently showed that 21 of the pills found in the defendant’s pocket were ecstasy. Evidence also sufficiently showed that the jury can include that the remaining pills were also ecstasy there was no evidence suggesting that they were not. Without some evidence of getting the evidence that the remaining 14 pills were ecstasy, there is no evidentiary support for a jury instruction on simple possession is a lesser included offense of trafficking.

The fact of the jury may have relied on circumstantial evidence does not matter. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Either of those or any combination of the two, is sufficient to support a conviction. The jury may consider all competent evidence, along with rules of law and basic common sense in reaching a verdict.

The defendant also argued on appeal that the trial court improperly instructed the jury about the minimum sentence for trafficking and ecstasy. The court said that the minimum sentence after three previous felony convictions was 30 years in prison. The minimum sentence is 12 years, according to the defendant. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will not reverse a jury instruction error less it results in a miscarriage of justice. It will also verse if the error constitutes a substantial violation of the constitutional or statutory right.

In this case, the erroneous instruction requires the jury to sentence the defendant to at least 18 years of the minimum sentence allowed by law. Nothing with their verdict in the fact that the jury imposed the minimum sentence for the range was given, the appellate court cannot conclude that would impose the same 30-year sentence with the proper instruction. Therefore, the appeals court modified the prison sentence.

Administer means the direct application of a controlled dangerous substance. This can be done by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other means. Coca leaves include cocaine in any compound derived from it. The term opiate means any substance having an addiction forming liability similar to morphine.

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, you need aggressive legal representation. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has handled hundreds of cases dealing with drug crimes. He focuses his practice on criminal defense. Schedule your initial free consultation. Attorney Cale will work to get the best possible result for you. You can choose to work out a deal or go to trial.