Oklahoma Criminal Law
For free consultation call 918 582 1313
Each crime has elements of the offense that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a defendant of a crime, but the prosecution only has to prove the elements, they are not required to prove anything else. The elements of a crime are the conditions that are defined by the legislature when passing the law.
Most states and federal circuits have uniform jury instructions the that clearly explain the elements of common offenses. For example in Oklahoma if a defendant is on trial for Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property the jury would be given the following jury instruction-
No person may be convicted of concealing stolen property unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are
First, concealing
Second, stolen personal property
Third, from the owner
Fourth, that the defendant reasonably should have known to have been stolen
Fifth, with the intent to deprive permanently.
So if a defendant is charged with Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property any admissible evidence that their lawyer could introduce suggesting that they did not know or should not have known the property was stolen would be relevant, because the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “defendant reasonably should have known to have been stolen”.
However, if a defendant was charged with False Declaration of Ownership instead of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property, evidence that the defendant did not know the property was stolen would not be admissible. Why would evidence that the defendant did not know or should not have known the property was stolen not be relevant in a trial where a defendant was charged with False Declaration of Ownership not be admissible? Because knowledge of the stolen nature of the property is not an element of False Declaration of Ownership, like it is an element of Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property. Inherent in the power to make the law is the authority to define what is and is not relevant.
This is important to understand, DO NOT ASSUME that the law will allow the admissibility of evidence because average people believe that something is relevant. The law determines what is or is not relevant, they call it law and not logic. The legislature defines crimes in such a way to make it easier to convict people who are accused of violating the law and a smart prosecutor will select a charge that they believe they can prove.
When evaluating the strength of a criminal case you always have to go back to the law¸ do not ever assume that you know what the prosecution is required to prove.