Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Knock Out Defense | Cale Lw Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Are you looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney who will work hard for your money? 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 and focuses his practice on criminal defense.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with first-degree murder. The case concerns the death of the woman and her home. Someone shot her six times. She died from a gunshot wound to her head and chest. Before her death should be married to Bob. However, they were having difficulties in their marriage. The two were no longer live together in the woman’s niece moved in with her. Bob would frequently harass the woman on the phone. When this happened, she would apply your phone. She also kept the pistol the kitchen table with her when she left the home.
The defendant lived a few miles south of the woman. He met another woman and they decide to live together. The first state with the defendant’s cousin. Later limited to guys house that too far away. They got married a few months later.
If you months ago, the defendant got together with some friends. They talked about getting rid of the woman who was eventually shot. The defendant was mad about something. But, the witness didn’t know exactly what the room at about. The discussion lasted almost an hour. The defendant still wife said that the group asked him to kill a woman.
Early in the morning, cussing him up to go to school. She said goodbye to her friend and got on the bus. The one was told that at this time. While this was going on the defendant told his wife go to do something. It then went out to the child where he worked and told him that he would not be working that day. He went to the woman’s home, and she invited him in.
They smoked some marijuana in the woman prepared some coffee. At this time, the defendant grabbed her dad and his and pointed it at her. She begged him not to shoot her but he did anyway. After the shoulder, the defendant went to his friend’s house and told him what he intended.
Law enforcement officers use an informant to get some information. The record a conversation with the defendant. Informant the which the defendant’s home to pick up somewhat and the defendant. During the drive, the defendant admitted his part of the murder of the woman. He described the details of the circumstances of the killing. If it also stated in the form of a was mad at someone because he had received the money he was promised for killing her.
A couple days later, please arrested appellant’s wife as part of the drug sting. Defendant was not part of this. Will be interviewed, the wife told police about the murder conspiracy. She also told them while defendant was drunk, he admitted to killing the woman. At this time, the state filed murder charges against the defendant and got warrants for their arrest. The defendant later confessed to the murder directed officers to this area where he dumped the murder weapons.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial judge improperly admitted the tape recording of the informant and the defendant. Anyone who voluntarily converses with another takes a risk that a person may memorize, record or even transmit conversation, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Once one party consents to the recording of the conversation are no longer private. However, if one the parties to the intercept conversation are not given consent, the is perception is prohibited in the information obtained is admissible in any judicial proceeding.
In the case at hand, the record was not clear what came to the issue of consent. The officer testified regarding the tape record conversation between the defendant and the informant. He was never specifically asked about informants consent to the transmission been taping of this conversation. The appellate court said it could be inferred that the defendant consented because he cooperated.
If evidence of the statement by the health court declared is offered simply to prove that the statement was made, it’s not hearsay, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. On the other hand, if the statement is offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted is hearsay and not admissible. In this case, the challenged testimony was not offered to demonstrate that the statements were made. Statements were relevant simply because they were made. It did not matter whether the assertions were actually true. Therefore, this evidence did not constitute hearsay.
The defendant also contended that he did not voluntarily confess to the sheriff. The trial court held a special hearing to determine this. The suppressing hearing, the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the confession is knowing and voluntary. The trial court’s ruling will be upheld on appeal that the record as a whole supports the finding. The testimony the present case revealed that the defendant had been arrested after midnight for driving under the influence. Authorities gave the defendant breathalyzer test a couple hours later. The results indicated a high blood concentration of alcohol.
Officers asked the defendant if he understood what he was doing by confessing. They testified that he understood what was going on and what was going to happen. During the suppressing hearing, the trial court listened to the audiotapes of the interview. The judge found that the defendant was very responsive and specific and his answers. He appeared coherent his ability to follow the all the questions respond to them. The judge further noted that the defendant’s confession mainly was narrative and not just responses to questions.
If you’ve been charged with a serious crime, you need a serious attorney. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale has been practicing for nearly 20 years and focuses his practice on criminal defense. He has handled numerous jury trials.