Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Reckless Driving Case | Cale Law Office
This content was written for Cale Law Office

If you’re looking for the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney, call the Cale Law Office at 918-277-4800. Schedule your free initial consultation with attorney Stephen Cale. The Cale Law Office focuses on criminal defense. Attorney Cale has nearly two decades of experience. Give him a call today.

Prosecutors charged the defendant with reckless driving. The judge fined him $250 but he appealed. Here the facts of the case. The defendant got into an argument with his girlfriend. Later the defendant left the area in his pickup truck. As police were arriving, the defendant hurriedly left and his truck nearly avoid the collision. Police officers chased after him.

The officers were not able to overtake the defendant. They estimated that his speed was between 80 and 85 miles per hour. The speed limit on the road with the officers chased the defendant was 45 miles per hour. Defendant first argued on appeal that the trial court mistakenly denied his request for a continuance. He argued that his court-appointed counsel is not point in time to properly prepare a defense. After reviewing the record, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals held that the defendant delayed the appointment of counsel.

Secondly, the defendant argued that the information filed against him was defective. The charge must contain a statement of has constantly offense and ordinary concise language, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale in addition, it must be stated in such a way to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. A person who drives a motor vehicle in a careless manner without regard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. The appellate court said that the information presented by the prosecution was sufficient to enable a person, understanding to know what was intended. The charge concisely and from the defendant of the charges and facts.

Thirdly, the defendant argued that the trial court should have accepted his request instruction. At trial, the defendant testified concerning a charge of assault battery. He submitted a proposed instruction asking that the jury is given Oklahoma jury instruction 845. This instruction requires the trial court given instruction March the jury that no adverse inference should be drawn from the defense to testify reckless driving charge. The trial court refused to give the instruction. The judge stated that the reason for the refusal was that the defendant was limited to cross-examining based on his direct examination.

The trial court reasoned that the defendant exercise of procedural right to not address a reckless driving charge. Therefore, the defendant did not lose any due process rights by not having instruction given. The defendant relied upon the case of Carter vs. Kentucky. This case relates to Fifth Amendment guarantees can self-incrimination. However, the trial court was also concerned about the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant. The appellate court determined that the judge’s decision created no prejudice but the failure to give the request instruction.

Lastly, the defendant argued that the trial court should not have allowed evidence of other crimes to be introduced against him. The defendant complains that the evidence of reckless driving when the police first encountered him more than two miles away in the scene was evidence of other crimes. The defendant contends that under the standard set forth in Brooks vs. State, the evidence would not be admissible. The Oklahoma court of criminal appeals disagreed. When the offense are to be proof forms a part of the entire transaction, evidence of the latter may be given to show the character of the former. The occurrences were part of the same transaction which included the events comprising the reckless driving charge.

Justice dissented. The reason that the charge merely steady conclusions and failed to apprise the defendant what particular acts are conduct gave rise to the charge of reckless driving. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale will file motions to get a charge dismissed. He does this by first looking to see whether not the charge is properly worded. He has successfully had charges dismissed by filing a motion to quash.

In another case, prosecutors charged the defendant with first-degree manslaughter the commission of a misdemeanor. On the day a preliminary hearing, the defendant filed a demurrer to the information motion to quash. The judge denied the petition. The defendant filed a supplement to his demurrer a motion to quash. A fair hearing on the supplemental motion, the judge took the matter under advisement and later sustained the motion to quash. The state filed a notice of intent to appeal.

The state asserted that the district court abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion to quash for insufficient evidence. The defendant was charged with first-degree manslaughter connection with a traffic accident. The defendant collided with an oncoming vehicle on the state highway while the defendant was attempting to pass another vehicle a marked no passing zone. One person died in the crash. Oklahoma is first-degree manslaughter statute publishes in the homicide perpetrated without designed to effect death by a person will engage in the commission of a misdemeanor.

The negligent homicide statute poses death of any person which is the proximate result of injury received by driving a vehicle at by any person in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Jury manslaughter is a felony with a punishment range of four years to life in prison. They which homicide is a misdemeanor with a punishment range of up to one year the county jail. In this case, the misdemeanor alleged is a predicate for manslaughter is the passing in a no passing zone. The defendant claims that only upon the charge for motor vehicles Italian of the circumstances negligent homicide.

If you’ve been charged with a crime you want to try to get the charge dismissed, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation with the Cale law office is free. Attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience. He focuses his practice on criminal defense.