Traffic Offense Archives

S-2012-1012

Post author:Staff
Post published:October 3, 2013
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2012-1012, Barry Lee Brown appealed his conviction for a traffic offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the prosecution. One judge dissented. The case began when a police officer claimed to have seen a traffic violation, which led to a stop of Barry Lee Brown's vehicle. After stopping him, the officer suspected that Brown might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A second officer was called to the scene to perform sobriety tests. Before the trial, Barry Lee Brown argued that the stop was not legal and asked the court to throw out any evidence from the stop. During the hearing, the officer who stopped Brown had trouble remembering exactly what happened. He referred to a report written by the second officer, but that officer had not witnessed the stop himself. Initially, the trial court thought there was enough evidence to say the stop was legal, but later changed its mind. The court reviewed different points raised by the state about why the trial court’s decision should be changed. The state argued that the trial court made mistakes in its decision to suppress the evidence. However, the Appeals Court looked carefully at the facts and decided that the trial court had a good reason to change its decision. They noted that the officer who stopped Brown did not have a clear memory and his testimony was mainly based on what was written in another officer's report. The Appeals Court stated it respects the findings of the trial court unless they are clearly wrong or not supported by the evidence. After reviewing everything, they agreed with the trial court's ruling because it was based on the officer's inability to reliably remember the details of the stop. The Appeals Court also addressed the state’s claim that the trial court should not have been allowed to change its previous ruling. They found that the state did not provide enough legal backing for this claim, so they didn't consider it further. Finally, the court looked at whether the first officer could accurately use the report to refresh his memory about the stop. They concluded that just because he accepted the report as true did not mean it helped him remember the stop accurately. In the end, the court affirmed the decision to suppress the evidence that led to the conviction and agreed to dismiss the case.

S-2004-1009

Post author:Staff
Post published:July 7, 2005
Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2004-1009, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction of Donald Isaiah Phares for negligent homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the dismissal of the prosecution. One judge dissented. To summarize, this case started from a car accident on September 15, 2003, where Phares was involved in a collision that resulted in another driver's death. Phares was first charged with a traffic offense for failing to stop at a stop sign and paid a fine for that. Later, in January 2004, the State filed a charge of negligent homicide against him, claiming his action of not stopping at the stop sign was reckless. Phares argued that being prosecuted for negligent homicide after already being punished for the traffic violation was unfair and violated his rights to not be punished twice for the same act. The court agreed with him, stating that both charges came from the same action, and therefore, he could not be punished for both. They found that the traffic offense was part of the negligent homicide claim and ruling that prosecuting Phares again for negligent homicide would lead to double punishment. The court decided the district court's dismissal was correct as the two charges stemmed from the same event, adhering to the law that prevents someone from facing multiple punishments for the same act. Thus, the court upheld the dismissal of the negligent homicide case against Phares.