This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with a crime, hire an attorney with experience and who is dedicated to criminal law. Call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. You also get a free defense strategy plan.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of assault battery. The sentenced him to 90 days in jail. Here the facts. A woman was waiting at the high school for a friend to give her a ride home. The defendant approached her and asked her if she a student named Gary. She replied that she did not intend to leave. However, the defendant grabbed her and jerked her backward. The crawl screamed and the defendant let her go. He then left the school grounds. The crawl report the incident to the assistant principal and fun police.
The next day the defendant was stopped at the traffic stop. The defendant agreed to follow the officer to the PlayStation and talk about the incident at school. The defendant admitted cramming the girl that stated that he did not intend to frighten her her her. The girl identified defendant is the one who grabbed her.
On appeal, the defendant’s first argument was that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a continuance. The defendant said that a continuous is necessary to lie to prepare for witness was endorsed by the state on the day before trial. Whether to credit continuances the sound discretion of the trial court. Without the piece of discretion, the Court of Criminal Appeals will not disturb the ruling of the trial court. In the case at hand, the defendant was not prejudiced by the testimony of the states latest witness.
The defendant second argument was that the state impermissibly read the verification clause of the information. The defendant objected this at trial. The appellate court looked to in 1980 case. In that case the court agreed that it was territory the verification clause of the information to the jury. However, the error was cured by an instruction which informed the jury that the information cannot be considered as evidence of guilt. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agree the same situation was present in this case, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. The verification clause was right to the jury. However, the jury was informed that the verification clause cannot be considered as evidence of guilt. Therefore the air was cured by this instruction.
In his third argument, the defendant claimed it was an error to allow the victim to testified that the defendant had been at the school a previous occasion. The defendant argued that such evidence was irrelevant it merely served to paint the defendant is a person who eventually rolled around schoolyards preying on children. The state argued that the offense was relevant to prove identity. The prosecutor stated that this evidence was relevant because the incident took less than one minute, and the defendant grab the girl from behind, thereby hindering her view of the space. The appellate court agreed that the evidence was relevant.
The next consideration was whether this relevant evidence was nonetheless admissible because of its prejudicial effect. Testimony did not infer that the appellant had committed other crimes will school, but merely consisted of the victim’s testimony that she had seen him on school grounds the previous occasion. Therefore such evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. As a consequence commission of this evidence was at the trial court’s discretion.
In his fourth argument, the defendant urges that the force or violence necessary constitute battery must be direct of such nature as to produce physical injury. The trial court instructed the jury according to the Oklahoma uniform jury instructions. Specifically instruction which states that any touching of any person regardless of how slight may be sufficient to constitute force. Statute under which the defendant was prosecutor does not specify the jury of force necessary to constitute a battery. Additionally the court has never directly addressed the question of the has been decided in several other jurisdictions. For example, in a Marilyn case it was agreed that the only solution is and battery. There been assault battery connections upheld where the defendant had merely twisted the victim’s arm.
The defendant relied on a 1931 Oklahoma case to support his premise the force must be directed to the nature to produce injury. In that case, the court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction first. There the defendant asked he victim to be quiet because she was disturbing L person. He let her by the arm away from the room feel person. Without explanation, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed conviction. After thorough review, the court explained that the focus of the case was the unlawfulness and willfulness of the defendant’s behavior rather than the amount for shoes.
Adopting a general although sinus or sentencing sensor to consider the requisite element of force is consistent with both uniform jury instructions and other statutory provisions regarding the definition of force, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale. It’s also important to note that the legislature did not require some degree of force to be used constitute battery. Therefore only the slightest touching is necessary to constitute the force or violence element of battery.
Lastly, the defendant asserted that his sentence was excessive. Unless the census access Avesta self-conscious of the court, the appellate court will decline to enter an order of modification. The present case, the said suit Tory limits was imposed. Therefore doesn’t want warrant location.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale is said that this can be a tricky situation. That’s because the statute reads, and as the courts have interpreted, only the slightest touch is needed to constitute battery. He points out however, that there must be the intent to do the touching. So for example, if one accidentally touches someone, that is not constitute battery. The person was pushed to another person can does not have an intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact, the person who was pushed is not committed battery.
The law on what may seem to be the simplest things, can be complicated. That’s why you want to hire an experienced attorney like Stephen Cale. Give him a call at 918-277-4800.