This content was written for Cale Law Office
Being charged with a crime is scary. So you want a Tulsa criminal defense attorney who will fight for you. Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation.
The defendant was convicted of trafficking motor vehicle law under the influence of drugs after two or more felony convictions, and driving with license suspended. The jury recommended punishment at 20 years in a $5000 fine on the first count in incarceration the county jail for one year on this second count. The trial court since the defendant accordingly the reduced to finding count one to $500.
The defendant raised for propositions of error. First, he argued that improper evidence led to an excessive sentence. Secondly, he said the evidence was insufficient to convict him of driving under the influence of drugs. Thirdly he argued that the trial court failed to instruct the jury of the definitions of under the influence and impaired ability. Lastly, he argued ineffective assistance of counsel denied him of a fair trial.
In the evening, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper so the defendant make the improper turn on the highway. The defendant deviated from the course and traveled into the outside lane during his turn. The windshield of the vehicle was cracked in a critical area within the span of the driver side windshield wiper area.
The trooper turned on his emergency lights and stopped the defendant’s vehicle. As the defendant got out the car, the trooper saw a small package fall onto the pavement. The defendant picked it up and leaned back into the car for several seconds. The defendant finally made his way back to the patrol car, informed the trooper that he did not have a drivers license because it was suspended.
The trooper had the defendant to the decedents of the passenger seat of his patrol car. He saw that the defendant speech was very thick and slurred. The defendant’s movements were abnormal and very exaggerated. Defendant used his hands a lot and made brisk movements. The defendant’s mouth was very dry and he smacked his lips alone while talking. The defendant the showing signs of methamphetamine or stimulant use, according to the trooper. With the trooper asked the defendant if you use methamphetamine for any stimulants, the defendant said that he did so the past.
The defendant remained nervous throughout the entire encounter with the trooper. The trooper could see the defendants Paul speeding inside his neck. He saw the defendant’s his stomach area as well. Shortly after the trooper had the defendant take a seat in the patrol car, the trooper checked the defendants Paul’s and observed that was outside the normal range of 60 to 72 beats per minute. The trooper determined that the defendants Paul’s was elevated 210 piece permitted. The high heart rate also was side of math or stimulant use.
When another trooper arrived the first trooper with the defendant he performed a sobriety test. The defendant’s perception of time was spent up. He estimated that 30 seconds have passed by after only 11 seconds. A normal response on this test is between 27 and 33 seconds. Because stimulant use speeds up the processes and causes the user to think that time is passing by faster than it actually is, the defendant’s test results suggested to the trooper that defendant was under the influence of intoxicants. Based on his training experience, the defendant seemed extremely intoxicated, according to the trooper. When looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney go to CaleLawOffice.com.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the troopers placed the defendant under arrest and searched his vehicle. They located a Crown Royal bag, three plastic baggies containing marijuana, a bag containing methamphetamine, and a smoking pipe. The defendant refused a blood test.
In his first argument, the defendant urges that the trial court committed error when admitted prejudicial evidence during the second stage of trial. The state introduced judgment and sentence documents which referred to suspended sentences, supervised probation rules probation. The long-standing rules that the parties are not to encourage terse speculate about probation, or parole policies. The state introduced for supper judgment senses to show prior felony convictions one of them is a certified copy of the judgment sentence for possession of marijuana. Another was a certified copy of the conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Another exhibit showed a conviction for distribution of marijuana.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has distinguished between circumstances where prosecutor makes and unmistakable, pop probation or parole an instance where the judgment sentence documents referenced probation or parole. Introduction of the judgment and sentence is proper part of the proof of a former felony conviction. A judgment sentence which shows the defendant received a suspended sentence, standing alone, does not constitute plain error. In a contrasting case, the appellate court found that it is here for the prosecutor to explicitly informed the jury that the defendant has received a suspended sentence through reading is fact off the information during the states opening statement and calling the jury’s attention to this fact during closing argument.
In the case at bar, the prosecutor did not make it impermissible comment about nation parole. Instead, he argued during closing argument that the pelican practicing the law who had average one felony every three years for the last 12 years. The prosecutor then asked to jurors to look at the judgment since Douglas to see what happened. Yes to jurors to look at the dates on them. Therefore, plain error did not occur according to the court.
Next the defendant argued that the judgment sentence documents included other information which was unfairly the judicial to. Relevant evidence is evidence having a tendency to make the existence of the fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. However relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative of value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or unfair and harmful surprise. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that when measuring the relevancy of evidence against its prejudicial effect, the court should give the evidence its maximum reasonable probative force in its minimum reasonable prejudicial value.