This content was written for Cale Law Office
Have you been charged with a crime? Hire a Tulsa criminal defense attorney who likes to fight. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 schedule your free initial consultation.
The defendant was convicted of second-degree manslaughter by use of an automobile. He was sentenced to four years in prison and fined $1000. He raised three issues on appeal.
Percy said it was her reversible error for the court to admit an officer’s opinion that the fiscal evidence prove that the defendant was tried the vehicle. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action and without proper consideration of the relevant Faxon law. It is also described as clearly erroneous. Expert opinion is immiscible when it: 1) is based on sufficient facts or data; 2) is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 3) the witness has applied this principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The officer never testified that the defendant was driving the car the time of the collision. He said that he would expect the defendant to be of the vehicle’s left side, for the pastor to be on the right side, and that the decedent had been in the backseat. An expert make an opinion on the ultimate issue, as long as he does not tell jurors what result to reach.
The defendant mischaracterized the expert as evidence. He based his conclusion about the defendant’s location on forensic and crime scene photographs. The officer did not give opinions in physics, forensic pathology, and biomechanics. The officer had specialized training in accident reconstruction traffic investigation, including homicide accidents. His training included training in mathematics, crime scene evidence and determination of location from records and injuries. This area of expertise requires neither medical nor engineering qualifications.
The defendant next argued that a certain statute is a valid of the recent US Supreme Court case. The court case have implied consent statute provided for nonconsensual blood draw whenever an officer reasonably believed the person arrested committed offense while intoxicated drug. The Supreme Court determined that, where a driver is stopped in place suspect is driving under the influence, the natural metabolism of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute as instant see that always justifies an exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing. The court found that emergency circumstances must be determined on a case-by-case basis considering the totality of the circumstances. The court’s focus was on the rejection of the claim the dissipation of alcohol from the bloodstream you standing alone emergency circumstances every routine case with driving under the influence.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that there is a significant difference between the statute at issue in the section of the Missouri statute at issue in the US Supreme Court case. Oklahoma law creates a per se rule requiring nonconsensual blood testing of the driver involved in an accident that can be cited for traffic offense, where the accident involves either a fatality or great bodily injury of any person, including the driver. The Oklahoma statutes concerning blood test for traffic offenses, or consensual, nonconsensual, or with implied consent is very narrow. The statute at issue does not depend solely on the disposition of alcohol in the bloodstream over time as an exigent circumstance.
The defendant claimed they should have the right to revoke his implied consent when he regained consciousness. He relies on cases which this court held that since implied consent statute allowed the conscious person to refuse consent, and unconscious person must be afforded that same opportunity. However, neither of those cases refer to the statute at issue, which does not contain a provision allowing the defendant to refuse consent. This is true whether not the defendant is conscious or unconscious. It is subject to statutory provision shall submit to a drug and alcohol test. The word was necessary to tie the surface the court to the argument on warrantless seizure.
In another case, the defendant was convicted of amending to provide for minor child. This will contention appeal was that the trial court violated his due process rights when it placed the burden of proof on the defendant prove the statute of limitations had not been told. The appellate did not object to the trial court’s finding. A certain statute provides that if the offenses committed in the defendant’s honesty, a prosecution may be commenced within the term limited after his coming within the state, and no time during which the defendant is not in the habit or usually resident the state.
In another case the defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to revoke his through your suspended sentence. He pled guilty to uttering a Port Chester after former conviction to more felonies. He was convicted and sentenced to five years, with the last three your suspended.
The state filed an application to revoke his suspended sentence. The application alleged that defendant had violated probation between the crimes of domestic assault battery. The judge found that the defendant violin probation is alleged to revoke the entire three-year term of his suspended sentence with credit for time served and earned. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said that the case is simply a matter of how the post imprisonment supervision statute is written how does to be interpreted. Interpreting statutory provisions, the appellate court will be guided by the text of the statute.
For persons convicted since on or after November 1, 2012, the court shall include in the sense of any person is convicted of a felony innocence to a term of confinement Department of corrections determine post imprisonment supervision. If the Legislature had intended for post imprisonment supervision to be applied after confinement the revocation of the suspended sentence, such language could’ve easily been included, but it was not. Therefore, before defendant revoked suspensions can be extended by nine months to one year post Christmas supervision, let’s which is must provide this.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale handles probation violation cases. This includes applications to revoke and motions to accelerate a deferred sentence. Often times, he’s been able to keep his clients from going back to prison.