This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’ve been charged with a crime, look for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free and lasts up to an hour. Also get a free defense strategy plan.

When you I hear Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale, he will get started your case right away. When the first things you he does is collect evidence that the state has against his client. The defendant has a constitutional right to examine the evidence that will be used against him at trial. To enforce this right, the prosecution in its law enforcement representatives is provided the defendant the opportunity to examine the evidence. This means preserving sample evidence for testing where appropriate.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held the destruction of evidence will require relief when the destruction is a result of bad faith by the state, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. In one case, the appellate court said that the defendant had a constitutional right to examine the liquid methamphetamine components admitted into evidence. The state destroyed containers holding the liquid methamphetamine components. This may have violated the defendant’s right. However, the violation of this right was harmless based on the weight of the evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction, the court said.

This is a summary of the case of Dill vs. State, which can be found at 2005 OK CR 20. Deal was convicted of lewd molestation sentenced to five years in prison. Here are the facts. On a January morning in 2004, a 13-year-old girl arrived to school early to do some homework. She went to a classroom where tell or. There was a health teacher and assistant basketball coach. After finishing her homework she turned did2 deal. The cut and rubber leg of the girl asked him to stop. Dill apologized to continue to rubber again.

Testified that you try to get a but the coach pushed her back seat and pulled off her pants. The girl said the Dill that put his pants down to have sex with her. Another teacher came to the coaches classroom to speak with him. However, the doors locked. The teacher use keys to unlock the door and upon entering the room saw the coach and the girl facing each other. They were both dude from the waist down. The teacher immediately left the room and notified police. Police arrested Dill a day later.

The decision whether to admit evidence is within the court’s discretion, said to criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. I really of that type will not be disturbed on appeal unless it’s clearly erroneous or manifestly unreasonable. Additionally, reversal is not required there is an abuse of discretion unless the defendant was prejudiced somehow.
Deal sought to introduce evidence that the girl had arranged her encounter with. The evidence was to go to the issue of consent. However, consent was not initially case because it was charged with statutory rape. Whether or not the girl orchestrated her encounter with coach was not relevant. That’s because two years old and incapable of consent. So, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals world that this evidence was properly excluded.

Additionally, dill sought to introduce evidence of the girls prior sexual encounters to show that he did not cause the girls factual tears. Dill do not offer a specific recent incident. Instead, he wanted to put on evidence that the girl told her treating doctor that she had been sexually active in that or Ryman was not consistent with one who was a virgin. Found evidence of when the girls other encounter occurred, the evidence was not relevant in the trial court correctly included, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said. Consequently, it found that there was no abuse of discretion.

Further, the appellate court said that even if were defined as trial court abused its discretion, appellate relief is not warranted. The appellate court found evidence share is harmless if neither had substantial influence on the outcome or let the court with grave doubt as to whether it might have an effect. In this instance, the evidence is still was overwhelming. Further, he was convicted of a lesser offense of molestation. The defense is not require showing of penetration. Also, a coworker had walked in on the couch and saw them facing each other. Therefore, any error not allow the evidence of conflicting statements by the victim, or evidence of past sexual encounters harmless because the defendant’s conviction little a station would not have been affected.

In his second proposition, dill contended that his due process rights to notice of the charges was violated when the state request instructions for little a station after both sides rest. The defendant contended the manner in which the state pursued this case did not put him on notice that he would seek a lesser included offense instruction and that had he known of the possibility he would of defended this matter differently. Dill also argued that the state failed to comply with the statute requires written instructions and that the trial court did not adequately review the record to determine whether he had been given notice.

Jury instructions over or a manner committed to the sound discretion the trial court. The trial court’s will not be disturbed as long as the instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and only state applicable law. Unless waived, trial court required to instruct on all lesser included offense is supported by the evidence. The defendant state to know they may be convicted of the greater crime with which is charged in any lesser included offenses whether the lesser included offenses pled in the information or not, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

Previous case law has provided guidance trial court’s on the issue of lesser included offenses. The state request the lesser included offense instruction and the defendant objects, the trial court should review the information together with all material those been available to the defendant the preliminary hearing and through discovery to determine whether the defendant received adequate notice of the states case raise lesser related offenses that should be deemed included. In deals case, the trial court concluded that he had sufficient notice the lesser offense a little a station based on the information in the discovery materials provided to him. That’s because the information charging to with statutory rape included the victims age and the defendants age. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has previously determined that the molestation is a lesser included offense statutory rape difference between the two crimes penetration. A person cannot commit statutory rape without having committed lewd molestation first.