<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/hmonYT-rJ9Y?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
This content was written for Cale Law office
If you’ve been charged with a serious crime such as first-degree manslaughter, call the Cale law office right away at 918-277-4800. Your initial consultation is free. You also get a custom made defense strategy plan tailored just for your case to take with you. Attorney Stephen Cale combines nearly two decades of experience with aggressive legal representation.
In May 2013 case, the defendant was tried by jury convicted of first-degree manslaughter after former conviction of a felony. The jury recommended a prison sentence of 27 years of fine of $5000. The defendant raised two issues on appeal. The first one was whether blood seized from the defendant is not arrest at the time of the seizure a be used in a later criminal prosecution for the purposes of proving the blood alcohol concentration in it. Second issue is whether a paramedic is authorized under Oklahoma law to withdraw blood for the purposes of determining the blood alcohol concentration.
The defendant did not raise a fourth member challenge to the omission of this evidence within the propositions of error rates in his brief. Therefore the issues deemed waived. In the propositions of Erin Vance for the first time in a reply brief must be deemed waived him forfeited for consideration. The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion omission a blood test evidence. An arrest is not a prerequisite for withdrawal of blood under traffic statutes. In the present case, the defendant was a driver of the vehicle involved in of tell the accident. He could been cited for traffic offense at the scene but was not. He also was not placed under arrest.
Therefore, the appellate court found a more specific statute controlled, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The defendant was not removed from the scene of the accident to the hospital or other health care facility outside the state before he could be arrested. The defendant was the driver of the vehicle involved in a fatality accident. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the omission a blood test evidence. The legislature specifically authorize the board of test for alcohol and drug influence to authorize qualified persons to withdraw blood for the purposes of making a determination of his concentration of alcohol or the presence of intoxicating substances. The board test his neck to the rule concerning who is authorized to withdraw blood for the purpose. The rule provides in part that other persons designated by law or authorized withdraw blood. The board test is also located a rule that provides the EMT paramedic slices with a national registry the state health department are off was to withdraw blood. Therefore the appellate court determined that the EMT paramedic licensed with the national registry and state health department is an is authorized under state law to withdraw blood for the purposes of having a determination made on its concentration of alcohol or intoxicating substances.
In another case, the defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony, kidnapping, and second-degree rape by instrumentation, all after former conviction of two or more felonies. The jury sentenced him to life in prison and each count in the trial court sentence accordingly. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the case should be remanded for resentencing.
The defendant was convicted of sexually assaulting a girl in January 2011 in Oklahoma city. During the first is the trial, the state presented propensity evidence in the form of testimony from another victim that appellate has sexually assaulted in 1979. The defendant was convicted of three sexual offenses. During the second stage the trial, the three prior convictions as well as for additional prior convictions were admitted to enhance the defendant sentence. Supplemental materials show that three of the four prior convictions were for sexual salts committed on the same day against a single victim.
The defendant objected to the enhancement of his sentence with all six of his prior sexual salts convict dictions. However he did not raise an objection a trial. As a consequence, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed only for plain error. The case presented the legal question as to how the omission of propensity evidence is to be applied regarding the use of transactional prior convictions for enhancement purposes.
During the second stage of trial, the actual convictions from each series of the fences can only count as one in accordance with the sentencing enhancement statute. In this case the trial court erred in admitting all six prior felony convictions.
Whether this error constitutes plain error requires consideration of the record as a whole, especially jury instructions. If the conflict between the jury’s consideration of propensity evidence in the use of transactional felonies for enhancement purposes to be a properly addressed or proper jury instructions. However, the instructions in this case did not sufficiently explain to the jury how to consider both types of evidence for sentencing purposes.
The jury was a properly instructed in the first age of the trial regarding their consideration of propensity evidence. During the second stage of trial, the jury was properly instructed regarding the range of punishment for conviction after two or more felonies under the proper statute. However, the second stage instructions did not go far enough explain how the jury was to consider both types of evidence for sentencing purposes. Without any instruction explaining the jury’s consideration for the propensity of evidence in relation to transactional prior convictions, defense counsel was deficient. This warranted sitting the matter back to the trial court for resentencing.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that it is extremely important that a jury gets the proper instructions. It can mean the difference as to whether defendant is found guilty or not. And if the defendant is found guilty, it’s important that the jury understand the proper range of punishment. Sometimes punishment can include just a fine. Other times it can include jail or prison time, or both incarceration and a fine.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale always strives to get a case dismissed or to have his client found not guilty. For aggressive criminal defense representation, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800.