This content was written for Cale Law Office
Prison probably really sucks. So if you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. You also get a complimentary defense strategy plan to take with you.
This case involves an appeal taken by the state. It’s appealing magistrates ruling which led to a dismissal the charge of cultivation of marijuana. The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of the controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the magistrate sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence as to cultivation of marijuana the district judge affirmed the ruling and denied the state’s appeal. The appellate court found that the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence was properly sustained.
The evidence of preliminary hearing show that the plea search the defendant’s bedroom for his parents home. And bedside night stand in town for baggies of green leafy substance. The substance was later analyzed and found to be marijuana. Officers also found a bottle containing a white residue later determined to be amphetamine. The defendant’s closet police found a professionally made, portable greenhouse and plastic gallon jugs filled with water. A growth chart was also attached to the side of the greenhouse.
Statutes provide that it’s unlawful for any person to cultivate or produce, or to knowingly permit the cultivation, production, or wild growing up any species of such plant, on any lands owned or controlled by such person, is the duty of every such person to destroy all plants found growing on lands owned or controlled by him. The court has previously found sufficient evidence was presented to support a conviction for unlawful cultivation of marijuana with states evidence est. that the marijuana patch was criminal the defendant’s ranch, approximate 10 yards was the house.
The house was connected to a Pats system of well-worn paths and marijuana was watered by the underground irrigation system. The defendant had keys to the pickup and with marijuana leaves and seeds were found. Seventy-five marijuana plants were found he was stacked under the defendant’s entries.
In 1984, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held convictions of two defendants for unlawful cultivation of marijuana. The court found the sufficient evidence was presented to support the charge of cultivation of two fields of marijuana discovered in the defendant’s home, navigation system of water sprinklers, control by pump from the house, weighing scales and photograph of the defendants posing in the field of marijuana. The court concluded that the evidence showed that the large-scale marijuana cultivation operation was in progress will in question the harvesting and processing the drug can commence. In each case the evidence of cultivation was the plants or the just harvested plants. In 1977, 12 marijuana plants were found growing in a flowerpot the defendant’s balcony. In 1975 marijuana plants were growing wild and the defendant’s backyard as well as flowerpot containing live marijuana plants.
Even though the standard of proof required to buy the defendant over from preliminary hearing to trial is less than that the city to sustain the conviction, the analysis of the previous cases is helpful. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that the question then becomes is proof cultivation limited to live plants were recently harvested plants? Stature prove habits cultivation, production or wild growing.
Will greenhouse, dirt, dry leaves and water may indicate that sometime in the past the defendant may have used greenhouse to grow plants, the time he was arrested and charged with the offense, there was no evidence of any plants currently growing the greenhouse or evidence today been harvested from the greenhouse. Additionally, the growth chart of the sub the greenhouse was applied by the manufacturer merely provided spaces for the user of the greenhouse to document growth of the plant. A chart had not been filled out in this case. When the banks marijuana found in the nightstand contain scene and stands. However, no evidence was produced show whether scenes were fit for growing marijuana plants are used in smoking the marijuana.
State argued that this crime, like any of the crime, can be proven by circumstantial evidence. As a consequence, the prosecution should be allowed to charge the defendant under certain statute so that we to circumstantial evidence will show the defendant was actually cultivating the illegal substance. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals of the wall mistake correctly recited the role law concerning circumstantial evidence, it did not properly apply that rule. The appellate court said the walls well-established that a preliminary hearing the state was present sufficient evidence to show that a crime was committed and reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime. There’s always presumption that the state strengthen its case at trial.
Finding the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney is easy. But the evidence of preliminary hearing must coincide with guilt and be inconsistent with innocence. In the case at hand, the state failed to meet its burden to show that the criminal cultivation of marijuana was committed the metric properly sustained the defense demurrer. Without an abuse of discretion reaching the data decision, the judge’s ruling will remain.
The appellate court’s decision does not mean that the state could not meet his burden of proof of the crime of cultivation marijuana have been committed through circumstantial evidence that did not include life plants are recently harvested plants. It simply means that in the case at hand the evidence is not sufficient to contain bind over because of lack of connection between the item season with other evidence that would support a pining.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that he has had several cases dismissed before they even went to trial. Often times he will file was called a demurrer and motion to dismiss. This can occur before or after a preliminary hearing. A demurrer contact the charge itself, arguing that the state is not stated facts that constitute a crime. Typically, and the demurrers filed after preliminary hearing attacks states evidence. More specifically, a demurrer will state that the state did not present sufficient evidence to show that a crime was committed and reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crime.