This content was written for Cale Law Office
Being charged with killing someone is one that scares moments a person could face. There are defenses however, as Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale explains. If you’ve been charged with a crime call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to set up your free initial consultation. Also get a free defense strategy plan.
The person who is not the aggressor, do not provoke another with intent to cause an altercation, or did not voluntarily enter into mutual combat, has no duty to retreat. Instead he may stand firm and use the right of self-defense. In aggressors defined as a person who by his wrongful acts provokes, brings spell, or continues altercation. The use of words alone cannot make a person an aggressor. Although a person may originally have been at fault in the altercation, a person can regain the right of self-defense if a person withdrawals or temps to withdrawal from the altercation, and communicates his withdrawal or attempt to withdrawal to the other participant in the altercation. If the other participant continues to fight the person who wants to quit, the participant who was not originally a fault becomes an aggressor. The a, Court of Criminal Appeals has made it clear that a person who is not a fault has noted duty to retreat. A person who is not a fault is entitled to the defense of self-defense so long as the reasonable belief of eminent bodily harm and the necessity for the use of force exists. It’s important to note that the evidence for the prosecution the trial indicates no dispute that the defendant was at fault, and if the defendant does not come forward with evidence to indicate the defendant was on fault, the issue of self-defense cannot be applied. If the evidence indicates without dispute that the defendant is at fault, the defendant is not entitled to a the defense of self-defense. In this instance the only question for determination by the juries with the defendant committed the crime charged or lesser included offense. This can be a complicated area that’s why you need to call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800.
The defense of self-defense is available to a person it was a trespasser only if the trespasser availed or attempted to avail himself of a reasonable means of retreat from the imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, bodily harm before repelling or attempting to put repel an unlawful attack. A trespasser is a person to has entered without consent, is unlawfully upon land of another, refused to leave the land of another after lawful request to leave has been named. If the trespasser has tried every reasonable means of retreat, or if no reasonable means of retreat exists, the trespasser may use force to defend himself against imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, or bodily harm. Naturally, the trespasser may respond only with the amount of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent harm reasonably believed to exist. Use of excessive force stores the defense of self-defense for the trespasser, just as it does for all other persons claiming this defense. It will be up to a judge or a jury to decide whether or not the defendant is a trespasser, and therefore entitled to the defense of self-defense only after the retreat requirements are satisfied in the case of the trespasser.
An altercation is defined as a heated dispute or controversy. Imminent danger is danger that is pressing, urgent, or immediate. Mutual combat is a fight between two or more parties into which each party has entered willingly.
It is a homicide may be justifiable in the case of accident or misfortune. Homicide is excusable when committed by lawful means if done with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, but occurs by accident misfortune what doing some lawful act. Homicide is excusable when committed by accident misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden insufficient provocation, or pawn sudden combat, provided that no into advantages taken, nor dangerous weapon used, and that the killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.
The lawn Oklahoma regarding excusable homicide is well-settled. Excusable homicide is distinguished from killings termed justifiable homicide and that justifiable homicide involves taking the life as a matter of right, such as self-defense or other statutorily defined causes. However, excusable homicide is where the death results from a lawful act by lawful means buttress results by accident or misfortune or misadventure or is accomplished with sufficient provocation, but with no undue advantage without unnecessarily cruel and unusual punishment. ma that without unlawful intent, the lawful conduct of a person unfortunately causes the death of another. In one case on appeal the defendant argued that his conviction for manslaughter in the 1st° should be reversed because the trial court refused to instruct the jury concerning excusable homicide. The defendant had carried a firearm in his belt throughout the entire evening on which the homicide happened. The defendant maintained during his trial that the person was killed have provoked an altercation with him and that during the ensuing struggle, the gun accidentally discharged, thereby causing the death. However in affirming the conviction court observed that particular statute prohibits carrying of a firearm. Thus the Court of Criminal Appeals declared that evidence by the defense had not indicated a showing of the next zone death the evidence did not show that the defendant involved in some lawful act by lawful means and with usual and ordinary caution. The possession of firearm and circumstances of that case resulted in a death in possession of the gun was unlawful. Because the defendant admitted been engaged in an unlawful act which resulted death, there was no question of fact for the jury in determining whether or not the defendant was engaged in lawful conduct.
In contrast to the case, however, the court criminal appeals reversed to the conviction for first-degree manslaughter where trial judge refused to instruct on excusable homicide, but instead instructed jurors concerning justifiable homicide. The defendant testified that she and her adopted son were scuffling over a rifle which accidentally discharged killed the child. The defendant maintained she did not know what caused the rifle to discharged whether she or her son had inflicted the fatal wound, or whether was caused by a shot from a rifle that the deceased was firing.
If you’re looking for the best lawyer contact Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800.