Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Narcotics Charge Lawyer | Cale law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a drug or narcotics crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Attorney Cale is a member of the legal committee for the National Organization choose for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Cale has nearly two decades of experience and focuses his practice on criminal defense.
After pleading not guilty, the defendant filed a motion to quash and set aside the information. The motion elects of the state failed to meet its burden of proof against the defendant by independent and competent evidence. The motion did not address with information contained the elements of the fence charged. It also did not allege whether the information correctly a price the defendant of his defense. The defendant must timely object to make a record to preserve any alleged error for appeal. A timely objection brings the alleged error to the attention the trial court and provides an opportunity to correct the error trial. In this case, the defendant failed to promptly demurrer to the information. Therefore he waived reviewing this issue on appeal.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals also looked to see whether not there was a fundamental error. The appellate court to determine the sufficiency of an information. First look to whether contains elements of the fence charge incorrectly prizes the defendant what he must be prepared to meet. Secondly, it looks to whether a conviction in the information we expose the defendant to the possibility of later being put in jeopardy a second time for the same offense. The court will use practical rather than technical considerations. The court held that the defendant was advised the precise charges leveled against him. Therefore refused reversed on this allegation of error.
The defendant also contended that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict. He argued that the state failed to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties to commit an unlawful act. He also said that there is no overt act in the furtherance of the object of the conspiracy. Statutory elements of conspiracy are: 1) an agreement to commit the crime charged and 2) an act done by one or more the parties to further the conspiracy or to affect its purpose.
The crime of conspiracy is a crime closed in secrecy. There’s seldom can the prosecution proves a conspiracy by direct evidence, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale circumstances from which the existence of a conspiracy may be fairly inferred is sufficient to prove it. Whether or not the parties entered into an agreement is a question to be determined by the jury. If there is reasonable evidence upon which the trier of fact may base a finding that an agreement existed, the appellate court will not disturb the decision on appeal.
The present case, a witness testified that he entered into an agreement with the defendant to distribute cocaine. The witness further testified that the defendant delivers the cocaine to him. He also said that the two undercover detectives picked up cocaine and the defendant returned later for money. The detective testified that when the defendant was arrested, he found the drug money used to by the cocaine.
The defendant further challenges in a separate introduced by the state. He said that the chain of custody asked all the must of evidence was improper. The purpose of the child custody rules to guard against substitution of or tampering with evidence between the time it was found in the time it was analyzed, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The state misled foundation showing that the evidence offered his insubstantial condition as when the crime was committed. However, the state does not have to negate all possibility of alteration. Any doubt as to the circumstances around the preservation of evidence goes the weight of such evidence rather than its admissibility.
The evidence code provides for the admission of relevant evidence under certain circumstances. When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of the condition of fact, the judge shall amend upon the introduction of evidence. Proper authentication or edification is a prerequisite for the mission of demonstrative evidence. The testimony that the matter is once claimed to fulfill this requirement.
Also on appeal, the defendant challenges the jury instructions. He argued that the trial court mistakenly failed to give instructions for any lesser included offenses of possession of a weapon will committing a felony. The defendant did not object or offer written request instructions as to lesser included offenses. Therefore he waived any objection. The appellate court reviewed the instructions for fundamental error. They found that the instructions adequately state applicable law. Instruction concerning and included offense is not necessary when the facts do not justify it.
The defendant also argued that the judge should disqualify the prosecutor who tried the case. He said the prosecutor was a potential witness. The record showed that the prosecutor participates in preparing an application for search warrant. He completed officers to the home where the search warrant was executed and participating questioning a witness. Defense counsel subpoenaed that attorney to testify for the defense counsel objected to the prosecutor participate in the preliminary hearing and a trial. However, trial the prosecutor was on call the testify.
The role of advocate when the should be separated. And that the kitchen of the called as a witness unless it’s absolutely necessary. Evidence given by prosecutor could easily carry more weight than a jury that evidence of other witnesses. The appellate court held that the line between advocate and witness was not crossed in this case because this system prosecutor did not testify. Additionally, his absence to not prejudice the defendant. The defendant stated that the purpose of seeking the prosecutor’s testimony was to cellist probable cause to arrest. The record reflected that the defense counsel thoroughly cross-examines the detective concerning the origin and extent of the information he possessed. He relied on the effect of a warrantless arrest of the defendant the prosecutor’s testimony was been cumulative.