Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Meth Lawyer | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
Have you been charged with a crime involving methamphetamine? Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with the Cale Law Office. Attorney Cale has been practicing for nearly two decades. His practice focuses on criminal defense.
Prosecutors charged the defendant with trafficking methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. The jury sentenced him to 20 years. The defendant appealed. Here’s a summary the case. Drug agent by meth from the defendant. The agent testified that he was investigating truck trafficking by the defendant. A confidential informant aided in the purchase. The informant set up to buy.
When the defendant pulled up to the decimated location, the informant approached him. The two spoke briefly in exchange money. The defendant gave the informant a clear plastic baggie containing a white crystalline substance. The agent field-tested the substance. It tested positive for methamphetamine.
Officers again set up to meet the defendant to buy methamphetamine. The defendant did not agree with the agent’s plan. He seemed nervous would not go to school. There were several other drug buys. Some occurred on tribal property. Officers recorded some of the drug buys.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the law of entrapment. This was his defense at trial. The defense mode brief on entrapment of the trial court held a hearing on the issue. The defendant maintained that because of the uncontested evidence of inducement the trial court must instruct in the jury on entrapment. As to inducement, he said the fact that each of the four drug cells was issued by the state the basis of entrapment. The defendant emphasized that the jury should be the one who decides whether not he was predisposed to commit the crimes at issue. As part of its consideration, he wanted this jury instruction.
After hearing arguments the trial court concluded that entrapment instructions cannot be given to the jury. The judge concluded that states actions in setting up a sales to not rise to the level of inducement. Also, the fact that the defendant sold on four different occasions in itself creates a predisposition to commit this crime. Consequently, the defendant preserved this for appeal.
There are two family different approaches to this defense. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals follows the rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court as to entrapment. The High Court has long recognized the defense of entrapment. It sought to draw the line between the proper action of law enforcement in revealing criminal activity. It deters and proper action in creating criminal activity. Merely affording the opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. The object is to reveal criminal design. It’s also to expose the always legal traffic. Best of the same when the criminal design begins with law enforcement in the implant in the mind evidence a person to commit the crime. The conjoint question is whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent who the government seeks to punish for alleged offense created lights on officials.
Oklahoma recognizes the defense of entrapment, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The function law enforcement is to prevent crime and apprehend criminals. The function does not include manufacturing crime. Where the fact strongly suggest that were not for the enticement of the government, the defendant would not have been involved in a crime the loft entrapment applies. The focus is on the character a predisposition of the defendant.
In drug-related offenses, law enforcement personnel have turned to one of the only practical means of detection. This is the infiltration of drug rings and limits participation in their unlawful practices. This type of an investigation is permissible.
The defendant’s character a predisposition evaluated before and a contract with the state. When law enforcement has induced visual to break the law, the prosecution must prove the unoriginal doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to been approached by agents. The government’s quest for convictions leads to the arrest of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own will, likely would never front of all the law, the court should intervene.
Early Oklahoma drama cases have focused on whether or not the defendant initiated or instigated the crime. Later, cases began to evaluate whether the defendant was otherwise innocent. Cases from this. Showed a significant concern regarding the use of known criminals to entrap persons are not personally involved in a crime. Later the question became whether not the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime at issue.
In one case, the Oklahoma court criminal appeals found that the defendant was not entrapped in the crime of practicing dentistry without a license. This was because the privately arranged informant did not have to use persuasion or inducement to obtain an appointment for Dell work. Additionally, the defendant had an officer for such work and was prepared to perform those services for any customer who might appear.
Because the defendant was ready willing to break the law he showed an intent to violate the statute in question. The violation originated in the mind of the defendant. So, he was not entrapped. In 1973 case the court approved entrapment jury instruction that focused on whether the defendant had the intent designed to commit the offense at issue. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has been willing to reverse convictions and find entrapment his mother law.
In drug cases, the appellate court has repeatedly recognized the trial court can probably decline a defense to entrapment with as evidence that establishes that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense at issue. Lies and deception are part of any sting operation. Law enforcement agents informants directly involved in these operations often as to represent the true identities. There always misrepresenting the true identities. That means they purport to be willing participants the crime. In fact, they are usually trying to catch the target of the commission of a crime. If you’ve been charged with a drug crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800.