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

Are you looking for a Tulsa criminal defense attorney who will fight hard for you? Call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.

No one can be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the death of the person alleged to be killed the fact of killing by the accuser established as independent facts be unoriginal doubt. Thornburg with first-degree manslaughter. The jury sentenced him to 60 years in prison. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed conviction remember the matter with instructions to dismiss. Here’s a summary of the case.

The mother of an eight-year-old child reported him missing in July. Authorities found the boys body beneath of a house. The remains consist of a skull and upper torso. These were covered by modified skin. Bones were scattered under the house in the backyard. The by him and disturbed impartially my animals. Dental records confirm the identity of the body. About a year later, after an arrest on an unrelated charge, the defendant confessed to the killing of the child.

The defendant raised for propositions of error. The Oklahoma court criminal appeals concluded that only the second one required reversal. The appellate court agreed with the defendant that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus to like the time the crime, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. Court first look timings the actual commission of a particular crime by someone. Specifically, in a homicide case, the prosecution must prove two fundamental and necessary facts. The first factor is the death. The second factor is the criminal agency of another as a cause of the death. The deaf person the killing by the accused must be established as independent facts prove the unoriginal doubt.

The prosecution is not required to prove the court corpus delicti be unoriginal doubt independent from the defendant’s confession. If the prosecution offers substantial evidence of the corpus delicti I, that is sufficient. After the prosecution is done so, it may reduce a defendant’s confession. Also if the totality of the evidence presented defendant guilty be unoriginal doubt, the prosecution’s case is sufficient. Only after substantial evidence to to prove the corpus delicti by the prosecution offer defendant’s confession of evidence.

The case at hand, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found that the prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence that can establish that the deceased died as a result of the criminal agency of another before the admission of the defense confession. Generally, evidence of criminal agency is provided homicide cases by pathologists renders an opinion as the cause of death, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The prosecution did not offer such evidence in the case at bar.

The appellate court said that was aware that corpus delicti may be established by circumstantial evidence. Stay contended that the evidence presented establish that the decedent died as a result of the criminal act. Stay place the evidence tend to show that the defendant was seen with the boy on the day that he disappeared. The other brother the deceased testified that on the day has by the disappeared, he and the deceased when the company amount to George called a friend.

The two boys and a friend or a clubhouse to the park. Both of them in the deceased then returned to their home. Later, the brother testified that the deceased left their home after stating I’m going to a friends house. This was the last time that his brother was seen. The brother did not identify the defendant as a person he called a friend. Even though the evidence established that appellant was with the deceased in the day disappeared, that was enough not enough. The appeals court did not find that it circumstantially established that the child died as a result of the criminal act.

State also claimed the testimony to establish that the defendant had knowledge of the location the condition the body before’s discovery was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish criminal agency. Two women lived in the neighborhood where the body was found. He then testifies to the conversation they had with the defendant we pointed to the house where the body was later found his day that the body would be found in the location. He said it would be cut up and put into bags. The evidence did not substantially prove that the deceased died as a result of the criminal act. Such knowledge does not create a rational inference that the death was caused by criminal means. Knowledge of the location condition the body is no evidence proving that the defendant causes the death or that the death was the result of a criminal act, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

Next, the state alleged that the effect of the body was in a dugout grave constitute substantial circumstantial evidence of corpus delicti. The appellate court disagreed. That evidence only established what happened to the body. It does not provide any conclusive evidence on whether the death was caused by criminal act. Lastly, stay contended that the medical examiner’s determination that the type of death was unusual is substantial evidence of corpus delicti. The appellate court disagreed. The condition of the body in a way was found the conclusion that the death was unusual. However, the appellate court said that evidence provided it impermissible inference to conclude that the type of death was unusual because it was at the hands of the criminal act. He did not rise to the level substantial evidence of states required to produce for conviction.

When it comes to confessions, the government must produce substantial independent evidence that would show trustworthiness of the confession. The defense confession consisted of following. As to the manner of death, he said that he punched him in the chest and apparently had his knife in the hand. He said he didn’t even know it but instead just wanted to put something in his hand. The defendant also said that he had the child in the center of the chest with all his force.