Intoxicants Archives - OCCA Opinions

S-2009-858

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:September 10, 2010
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

RE-2004-435

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:July 15, 2005
Post category:RE

In OCCA case No. RE-2004-435, the appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the revocation of his suspended sentences and return the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. In the original case, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts involving illegal drugs. The judge sentenced him to several years in prison but suspended the sentences with conditions, including not using drugs or not violating any laws. Later, the state asked to revoke his suspended sentences because he was arrested for new drug-related crimes. The state claimed he broke the terms of his probation. During a hearing, the appellant's probation officer testified but did not have direct evidence against the appellant, like a confession or firsthand knowledge, which led to questions about the evidence's reliability. The judge revoked the appellant's probation, but the appeals court found the evidence insufficient to support this decision. They explained that the state did not provide enough solid proof that the appellant committed new crimes and emphasized the importance of the right to confront witnesses when proving probation violations. As a result, the court reversed the revocation decision and ordered the case to be sent back for further proceedings.

M 2004-0742

Post author:Mili Ahosan
Post published:June 7, 2005
Post category:M

In OCCA case No. M 2004-0742, the appellant appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicants and failure to wear a seat belt. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the decision and dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The case involved an appellant who was stopped by a police officer for not wearing a seat belt. The officer did not see the appellant driving erratically. However, the officer noticed that the appellant smelled like beer and had bloodshot eyes. The appellant told the officer he had consumed three or more beers, but the officer did not ask how long ago he had been drinking. During the trial, it became clear that the judge did not properly define what under the influence meant according to the law. The judge misunderstood that for someone to be considered under the influence, their ability to drive must be affected. This misunderstanding is very important because it means the trial didn't follow legal rules which are necessary for a fair judgment. Because of the mistake in understanding the law, the court decided that the evidence wasn't enough to support the appellant's conviction for driving under the influence. As a result, they overturned the conviction and directed the lower court to dismiss the case. This means that the appellant's conviction is no longer valid, and there will be no punishment against him for the charges.