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

If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. With your first consultation, attorney Cale will develop a free defense strategy plan document for you.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with distribution of controlled substance after former convictions and felonies. The jury convicted her and sentenced her to 20 years in prison. The defendant appealed

The defendant first argued that the trial court mistakenly admitted evidence of other crimes. Over the defendant’s objection, the court allowed the state to present evidence of other crimes concerning a methamphetamine transaction that happened three months after the charged crime. Stay present this evidence through an informant along with the stipulation that the drug given to the informant was methamphetamine. Jurors heard that the defendant had been charged with distribution of methamphetamine, convicted and sentence. They also heard that the methamphetamine transaction with the informant was after the charged issue. The defendant argued that this evidence should not have been admitted because it showed that he was a drug dealer.

A fundamental legal principle is that a person should only be convicted by evidence of the crime which is charged with, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The state presented a disputed direct and circumstantial evidence of the crime charged. Given the strength of the evidence of the crime charged, the state did not need evidence of other crimes to support its burden of proof. The record does not support the states claim that the evidence of the later truck crime was needed to sustain its burden of proof. The judge instructed the jury to consider the methamphetamine evidence on the issue of motive, opportunity, intent and preparation. Neither motive nor opportunity were not issues in the case.

Also, the evidence did not have been admitted to show intent. Distribution of drugs is a general intent crime. The specific intent is required by the general intent to distribute to the defendant believed to be a controlled substance. Because of that, the Oakland Court of Criminal Appeals has held the evidence of other drug transactions is not admissible as of the crimes evidence to prove intent to commit drug distribution. The likelihood to commit a crime based on evidence of other similar crimes is what the law prevents.

The minimum possible sentence was six years. It is common knowledge of methamphetamine is a destructive drug that causes social problems as well as damaged to its users. The state is devoted a great deal of publicity to laws designed to reduce methamphetamine manufacture. Has conducted a widespread media public service campaign to make citizens aware of the harms of this truck. On the other hand, Xanax is a drug which is possessed legally by prescription. It also has some legitimate medical uses. Distributing sex pills is different from distributing plastic baggies containing methamphetamine. The defendant’s prior convictions were for possession of a firearm, not distribution. Therefore, the appellate court modified his sentence from 20 years to six years.

Secondly, the defendant argued on appeal that the judge improperly told jurors about his prior suspended sentences. He said that the prosecutor negation improper and prejudicial argument. However, he did not object either the evidence or the argument. Because of that, the appellate court reviewed for plain error. The record supported both claims.

The prosecutor argued that the defendant deserved a long sentence because several chances to change behavior but chose to be a drug dealer instead. In doing so, the district attorney called attention to a suspended sentence for one of the defense prior convictions. For that conviction, he served only 60 days. The appellate court held that the party should not refer to probation and parole policies in order to influence the sentence. Taken in context and based on the record, the prosecutor’s argument urged jurors to sentence the defendant on basis of a proper as well as legitimate concerns. The prosecutor’s actions caused the defendant to suffer a substantial right.

In a separate case, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant on the defendant’s home. They found over two pounds of methamphetamine in various containers, plus scales, marijuana, cocaine, and a large amount of money. The officers who got the search warrant plan in advance to conduct the search when the defendant was away from his home. The defendant reported a burglary at the business. On the day of the search, an investigator arranged to meet defendant at the business to discuss the burglary.

With the defendant arrived at the meeting, investigator alerted the search team. Investigator went to the defendant’s home, not to the store. When he did not hear a response, he entered the residence forcibly. Officers then made an initial sweep of the premises and secured the nearby garage. The defendant’s wife arrived later with her young son. The officer informed her that he had a search warrant for the residence and that she was not under arrest at the time. Police then searched the detained the wife and continued to search the premises.

According to the officer’s plan, if they develop probable cause to arrest defendant during the search, then they intend to arrest him neatly in his place of business. During the initial sweep of the residence, officers discovered marijuana in plain view. To the officers left the residence and arrested the defendant for possession of marijuana. In the search of his person, officers found money. Officers advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. However, the defendant confessed that the drugs and has belong to him. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said they should never talk to police.

The defendant said that the drugs were his and not anybody else’s. Prosecutors did not charge the defendant’s wife. The defendant denied possessing contraband. On appeal, the defendant argued that the search party violated statutory requirements because they failed to personally serve him with a copy of the search warrant. As a consequence, he argued that the court should have suppressed the evidence. The burden of proving the folding this of a search warrant rests on the defendant.