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

The criminal justice system can be scary. That’s why you need an aggressive Tulsa criminal defense attorney to guide you through it. Call Stephen Cale at the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation. Attorney Cale has nearly 20 years of experience. Plus, he focuses his practice on criminal defense.

The state will mix a crime to assault a sports official. The issue went on appeal to decide whether not statute was constitutional. The defendant was an assistant coach for the losing team and a baseball tournament. The victim was the home plate umpire during the game. The incident took place in the parking lot after the game. The victim opened up his truck and was changing uniforms in preparation for the next game.

Players from the losing teams around the victim. They’re criticizing his calls as an umpire. The defendant approached the group, had words with the victim, instruct them in the face with his fist. On appeal, the defendant challenged the statute has been unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has successfully gotten charges dropped based on constitutional grounds.

On appeal, the defendant challenge the statute has been unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals is held that statute should be interpreted to produce reasonable results and should promote the purpose and policy of the law. Statutes are presumed to be valid and constitutional in the party attacking the statute has the burden to prove otherwise.

Prohibited did conduct, in this case, is an assault or battery upon the person of the umpire is guilty of a misdemeanor. This letter specifically indicates which persons are covered. It also prizes the public of a particular conduct is the impossible. For this reason, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or indefinite.

Next, the defendant argued that the trial court mistakenly failed to sustain his demurrer to the state’s evidence. His final claim is that the trial court made a mistake in excluding evidence of a letter from the district attorney’s office stating that the defendant would not be prosecuted for this charge. The court has been repeatedly held that the issue of relevance is discretionary with the trial court. The verdict will not be disturbed on appeal without a showing of abuse of discretion. The trial court ruled that this evidence was not relevant. Because of that, the defendant failed to show any abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Anyone who administers poison to someone with intent to kill the person is guilty of a felony. This crime is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years. In October, the defendant’s mother checked into a hotel. He read the room under an assumed name. The defendant entered into evidence at trial the statement made by the victim to police that he read the room to sell marijuana and drugs.

Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has handled numerous jury trials. He handles some of the most serious charges. These include sex crimes, homicides, murder, and robbery. If you’ve been charged with a crime, you must call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 schedule your free initial consultation.

The great thing about Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is that he is worth the money. You’ll get excellent representation if you hire him. Attorney Cale is always looking for the best result for his clients. He will work hard to achieve that result. When you first meet with him, he will develop a strategy for you.

A friend that the man that the room but excited to get a secret. Shortly after he returned, there was a knock at the door. The man opened up the door response to not in a man wearing a ski mask over his face hit the man, not him to the floor. A second man entered the room. The second intruder did not wear a mask over his face. Both victim’s mother identified the defendant is the second robber.

The defendant held a pistol to the victim’s stomach, forced into the ground, and demanded money. The victim gave the defendant about $1000, held his hands in the air, and that robber to turn his mom. The defendant laughed and shot the victim in the stomach. One of the robbers track victim to the bathroom and throw them into the bathtub. The robber through the victim’s mom and to the tab on top of him. The robbers to demanded to where the drugs were.

Robbers stole money, a purse and again. The victim drove himself to the hospital. The doctors they have removed a bullet from the stomach. A week later, an officer arrested the defendant. As another officer tried to handcuff the defendant, the defendant spun around and knocked the officer back. The defendant also pulls again from his waistband and pointed it at the officer as he was laid on the ground.

The assisting officer if the defendant in the back of the head, taking the code to the ground. The defendant was so strong that it took five officers to handcuff him. Officers found the gun that was stolen from the motel. They also found drugs in the defendant’s pocket. A ballistics report showed that the bullet that was removed from the victim was the same was fired from the government the defendant shot.

On appeal, the defendant asserted that the court may mistake by felony of the Custer instruction on eyewitness verification. At the trial, the defendant called to former police officers. They testified that the interviewed the victim and his mother at the hospital. Both of those people told the officers that both robbers were mass. On cross-examination at the trial, victim’s mother denied making any statement that both robbers were mass. The expressly testified that the defendant was unmasked. The written statement made by the victim that the hospital states nothing about masks.