This content was written for Cale Law Office
When the state is trying to put you in jail or prison, you want somebody who will fight for you. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. The Cale law office is dedicated to criminal defense.
The defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree manslaughter and unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison on the first count of five years on the second. The first count is an 85 percent crime, meeting they must serve 85 percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole consideration. On appeal, the defendant unless there were seven errors.
First, he argued that he had an absolute right to use lethal force to repel an unlawful intruder. Therefore, he argued he is immune from prosecution and his conviction for manslaughter must be vacated dismissed. Here are the facts of the case.
To suffer midnight, the defendant fatally shot printed in the chest with a sawed-off shotgun. Bradford had been a piece of relationship with a 19 oh girl. The girl lived with her older sister and holding build. The nine-question Brandon came to their house, fight with a girl, and Dr. to the ground. He left, got drug and return to the house.
The defendant had never met Brandon of the crime told the defendant about him. The defendant and his friend picked up the girls. The drove to the bus near the lake. The defendant usually carried a sawed-off shotgun, and then it shouldn’t near the lake. There turned the girl’s house. Brenda drove up immediately wanted to the house uninvited. The defendant guys sawed-off shotgun from his car. Brenda spoke to the girl briefly but was distracted when he saw a friend on the couch. Asking a friend will start something, Brenda McKenna hit the friend. The curls help for stop. As Brennan attacked a friend, the defendant stepped inside the front door. The defendant raised again and shot printed once the chest. The defendant admitted shooting Sanford the told police it was an accident. A claim self-defense at trial.
On appeal, he claimed that process was part of stand your ground law. Oklahoma statutes provide a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place that they have right to be, may use deadly force to repel and unlawful intruder. A person who has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another may use defensive force including deadly force. The person against him forces use must commit an unlawful and forcible entry or act which prompts the use of deadly force. A person may use deadly force is no duty to retreat when he has the lawful right to be where he is, and when he recently please the use of deadly force is necessary. A person with him forces justified according to the statute is immune from criminal prosecution selection.
The defendant claimed through the proceedings that stretch apply to him and he should never been prosecuted. State responded that the statute does not apply to the defendant. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the state, for Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The statute explicitly states that for a person to be justified in using deadly force, the person is not be engaged in unlawful activity. The defendant had an illegally modified weapon, that being his sawed-off shotgun, and used it to shoot Brandon. The time use deadly force, he was engaged in an unlawful act. Therefore he does not get the benefit of the statute.
The contrary statutory language, and appellate court will tend to give affect the legislature’s intention is expressive statute. As statutes techs put citizens on notice of proving the conduct, the plain language of this text should guide interpretation. The legislature design statute for specific situation, it will be given effect that intent. Defendant admits that he was in possession of an illegal weapon of the time of the crime. He argues that the plain language statute is not sufficient to encompass legislatures and 10 regarding standard Cale law. The defendant was forced to read the statute the requirement and unlawful activities of daily force. He suggest that there such a rating, the type of weapon use enough to do with his usual daily force. Therefore he argues that there is no connection between his unlawful act and the crime. He argues that the legislature cannot have intended otherwise law by citizens to be denied absolute right of self-defense of their homes just because they might be guilty of some hypertechnical legal violation such as illegal parking or possession of an illegal weapon.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed analogous precedent in analyzing this issue. In one case, the appellate court looked at the initial version of the stand your ground law. The defendant was known as the make my day law. It did not contain explicit language providing for an extension of persons who use deadly defense force while engaged in unlawful activity. That instance and found the term occupant to include any person lawfully inside the dwelling, without regard to the possessor your privacy interest. The court noted that the statute applies to the Google guides as well as the bad guys. The legislature lettermen of the law to include the provision of exempt the persons engaged in unlawful activity.
Looking at the provisions of the statute together, it appears that the legislature intended to allow Oklahoma citizens the right of defense the furtherance of their expectation absolutes 15 places they have the right to be, unless the citizens are engaged in unlawful activity at the time. Statute does not specify the type of unlawful activity nor requires a connected to the use of defensive force. As a consequence, the statute contains no nexus requirement. The court does not interpret statute to require a connection whether requirement is neither included Norton assert affect the legislature’s intent. The court recently reached a similar result based on expensive statutory language in a certain case. The string the misdemeanor manslaughter statute, it found that the statute does not distinguish among the types or categories of misdemeanor offenses that may be used as a predicate offense for misdemeanor manslaughter. Similarly, the legislature failed to distinguish my types or categories of unlawful activity of apprentices and proclaim justification for deadly force under the stand your ground law. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that the legislature has the power to do so, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. However the court will not attempt to create such distinctions.