Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Focused Attention | Cale Law Office
This content is written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a sex crime, you need to call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. The Cale law office provides aggressive legal representation. It is worth the money to hire attorney Cale. He will give you excellent focused attention to your case.
The DAs office charged the defendant with assault battery with intent to kill. A jury found him guilty on the lesser included offense of assault battery with intent to do bodily harm. The judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The defendant appealed arguing that there were a number of errors. Here are the facts of the case.
The defendant met Lisa in the fall. In January the next year, Lisa took her children to her sister’s wedding. She left her youngest child with the defendant. The child was sick, so his mom did not want to him in the house. A few hours later, she returned to find her seven writing and paying. The defendant stated that the boy phones on the chair and hit his head on the cement floor. The mother called a neighbor to see if the child needed medical attention. The neighbor told her that the child had a serious injury and needed to go to the hospital right away.
Emergency room doctor testified that the child was in a comatose condition and responded only to painful stimuli. Some of the cause suppress bruises on his head in the air. There was no in prison the middle of his chest. There is also a small pinpoint injury long the front of his neck. This indicated strangling.
The doctor stated that strictly had occurred within the last 24 hours. After examining the child, the doctor called an agency that investigates suspected child abuse and neglect. The DAs office filed criminal charges after the investigation. The mom pled guilty to two unrelated charges of child abuse. The prosecutor charges the defendant with strangling the child.
At trial, two witnesses testified that the child was frightened by the defendant. One witness testified that on one occasion, the defendant remarked that he did not like the child and would like to choke him. The defendant claimed he was convicted of a crime that does not exist. The charge was assault and battery with intent to do bodily harm. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that this is a lesser included offense.
The defendant next argued that there is not sufficient evidence to support a verdict. He argued that the only reasonable Terry with as to the child’s injuries is that the mom choked him. The appellate court said that there is ample evidence in the record from which the jury could conclude that the defendant entered the child.
The defendant also argued that the trial court made a mistake in overruling his motion to disclose the deal made with the mother. The court agreed the nondisclosure evidence that affects the criminal and witness may want a new trial. This is because it’s equivalent to suppression of exculpatory evidence. However, after reading the transcripts, the appellate court concluded that it’s not clear whether not there is an agreement between the prosecution in the mom.
Testimony indicates such an agreement may have existed. The state never conceded that a pardon gave way to the mom’s plea. Because the burden to make an adequate record rest with the defendant, he failed to meet this burden. He also argued that the trial court should one of the pictures of the child while in the hospital. The pictures show the child looking very second suffering. Photographs are admissible if their value at least the prejudicial effect. The court said that the picture served to cooperate the testimony of several witnesses. They also indicated that various injuries suffered by the child. The pictures also to refute the defendant’s theory of an accident.
The defendant also argued that the judge had not limited to cross-examination of the witness. This witness testified that she asked the woman to check the child. When she arrived, defendant was on the child. The defendant tossed the child on the couch and said these damn kids. The defense counsel tended to impeach the witness but she had not referred to the statement at the preliminary hearing. The state objected to this form of impeachment, which the judge sustained.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said the extent of cross-examination rests within the sound discretion the trial court. The defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow impeachment in this matter because it falls within the category of the prior inconsistent statement. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. The woman had not made a prior statement which was in conflict with her trial testimony. Defense counsel did not ask her a preliminary hearing about any statements made to the defendant.
Under the circumstances, the trial court properly prevented this method of impeachment. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have used other methods of impeachment. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that impeachment is a way to undermine the credibility of a witness. This can be done by showing that the witness made a prior statement that’s inconsistent with her current testimony. Attorney Cale is an excellent trial attorney.
Lastly, the defendant contended that the prosecutor made comments during closing arguments the deprived him of a fair trial. However, the defense counsel did not object. Therefore only fundamental error will give way to a reversal. At first, the defendant complained that the prosecutor misstated the evidence. While the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals will not tolerate a misstatement of evidence, attorneys for both sides may discuss fully their interpretation the other tenants.
Attorneys may discuss fully their interpretation of the evidence and the inferences arising from it. The appellate court found no error after reviewing the prosecutor statements regarding the evidence. The court found no fundamental error especially led the jury’s verdict which found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of assault battery with intent to do bodily harm. Because of this, the court affirmed the conviction.