Friday, May 4, 2012

Fwd: Criminal Law Summaries Distributed May 4, 2012



Victor Cuvo, Attorney at Law
770.582.9904
(sent from new iPad)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries <notifications@justia.info>
Date: May 4, 2012 9:06:59 AM EDT
To: Victor Cuvo <vacuvo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Criminal Law Summaries Distributed May 4, 2012
Reply-To: Justia Practice Area Opinion Summaries <notifications@justia.info>

If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add notifications@justia.info to your address book.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.

Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.com

Practice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.

Today on Verdict

John Dean

Revisiting Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate Reporting: A New Smoking Gun?

Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean comments on a fascinating new twist in the Watergate story—evidence that Woodward and Bernstein spoke to Watergate grand jurors. Read Article

Weekly Opinion Summaries

Criminal Law

Weekly Summaries Distributed May 4, 2012
Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia Subscribe Now to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Morgan v. Pepe

Court: U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-1208 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Lipez

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant, convicted of first degree murder in Massachusetts, exhausted state appeals. No physical evidence linked him to the crime, but circumstantial evidence included his threats to kill the victim, testimony that the victim was last seen getting into a car with defendant, and defendant's statements indicating guilt. The district court rejected his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition, which was based on an argument that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court applied a beyond a reasonable doubt standard contrary to that articulated by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), in evaluating his claim that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction or incorrectly applied the correct standard. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

http://j.st/dby View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Jimenez v. Conrad

Court: U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1180 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Souter

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1982, Jimenez was convicted of the parolable offense of second degree murder for killing a police officer and simultaneously acquitted of murder in the first degree, conviction of which would have carried no possibility of parole. The Massachusetts Parole Board denied his parole applications in 1999, 2004, and 2009. He sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violations of due process and equal protection and infringements of guarantees under the Commonwealth's constitution. The defendants are the six members of the Board, named in their official capacities, each of whom voted to deny parole. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim for constitutional violations, finding specific relief barred by the section 1983 prohibition of injunctions against judicial officers. The First Circuit affirmed. There is nothing shocking or arbitrary about the parole board's discretion. A state may rationally take the position that a law enforcement officer's constant exposure to violence calls for a more powerful deterrent to homicidal behavior than the general laws of homicide provide.

http://j.st/dyu View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Akinsade v. Holder

Court: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-662 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Katzmann

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner, a noncitizen from Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because his conviction of embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. 656 constituted an aggravated felony. The court held that because none of the facts to which petitioner actually and necessarily pleaded to establish the elements of his embezzlement revealed whether that offense was committed with a specific intent to defraud, it was error for the BIA to infer that his conviction was an offense involving fraud or deceit. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings.

http://j.st/dVZ View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Litwok

Court: U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-1985 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Lohier

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Tax Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of mail fraud and three counts of tax evasion for calendar years 1995-1997. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial evidence was insufficient to support her convictions and that the mail fraud and the tax evasion counts were improperly joined. The court agreed with the sufficiency challenges relating to the tax evasion counts for 1996 and 1997 and reversed her convictions on those counts. The court vacated defendant's convictions for mail fraud and tax evasion for 1995 on the ground that those counts were improperly joined, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

http://j.st/dK8 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Palacios

Court: U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 08-5174 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Duncan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes arising from his involvement in the street gang La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). On appeal, he raised several challenges to his convictions, focusing on the district court's admission of certain testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-68, and the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (VICAR), 18 U.S.C. 1959. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony, evidence of prior bad acts, and testimony of defendant's cellmate. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/drJ View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Laudermilt

Court: U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-4624 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Shedd

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A federal grand jury indicted defendant on one count of possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. Defendant moved before trial to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police seized it in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court agreed and the government appealed. In a threatening domestic situation, with information that at least a special needs child was in the home, the officers conducted a properly circumscribed protective sweep, which yielded the discovery of a firearm as that sweep continued. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order granting the suppression motion where the police officers' actions in this case were consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

http://j.st/Pk2 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Cunningham

Court: U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 09-5987 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Gilman

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Drugs & Biotech, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics, White Collar Crime

Defendants, two of three lawyers who represented several hundred Kentucky clients in a mass-tort action against the manufacturer of the defective diet drug "fen-phen," settled the case for $200 million, which entitled them under their retainer agreements to approximately $22 million each in attorney fees. By visiting clients and obtaining their signatures on "confidential settlements," for lesser amounts, the two actually disbursed slightly more than $45 million, less than 23 percent of the total settlement. The lawyers kept the remainder for themselves and associated counsel, transferring much of it from the escrow account to various other accounts, including out-of-state accounts. The scheme was discovered; the lawyers were disbarred and convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. One was sentenced to 240 months, the other to 300 months. They were ordered to pay more than $127 million in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a variety of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and trial procedures.

http://j.st/drr View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Schiro

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 09-1265 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Posner

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendants, charged with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by conspiring to conduct an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), appealed denial of motions to dismiss indictments, charging them, with other members of the "Chicago Outfit" with a pattern of racketeering activity, from the 1960s to 2005, including murders, extortion, obstruction of justice, and other crimes. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that they failed to show sufficient overlap between the indictment and previous indictments to establish double jeopardy. All defendants were convicted. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a renewed claim of double jeopardy, claims based on the statute of limitations, challenges to sufficiency of the evidence, and challenges to handling of the jury. The court reversed the part of the sentencing assessing shares of restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A.

http://j.st/dHp View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Kuhn v. Goodlow

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1762 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Kanne

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

The owner and a prospective tenant signed a residential lease at a home for which the owner had not yet obtained a certificate of occupancy. As the tenant began moving his belongings into the house, a building inspector reminded him that all rental property must have a certificate of occupancy before a tenant can live in the house. Visibly upset, the owner berated the inspector in the presence of a police officer, who arrested the owner for disorderly conduct. Following his conviction, the owner filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming he was unlawfully arrested without probable cause. The district court dismissed the officer and later granted summary judgment to the inspector. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that the evidence supported that the owner was arrested for disorderly conduct and only later cited for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy.

http://j.st/dys View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Alcala

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2412 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Flaum

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After two days of trial, defendant, charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 50 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A); and one kilogram or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 846, pled guilty to unlawful use of a communication facility to further a drug trafficking offense, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 843(b). He signed waivers of indictment and of appeal. During the plea colloquy, defendant stated that he had eight years of education, that he had never been declared mentally incompetent, and that he was not undergoing psychological or psychiatric care or using medications or any drug that would affect his comprehension. He stated that voluntarily accepted the plea and waivers. He later filed a letter with the court, ostensibly pro se, requesting to withdraw his guilty plea. His attorney moved to withdraw. The district court appointed new counsel, denied his motion to withdraw the plea and imposed a 34-month sentence, which amounted to time served, plus one year of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal, finding that the waiver was valid and encompassed his right to appeal denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.

http://j.st/dvF View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Phillips v. Cmty. Ins. Corp.

Court: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-1654 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Williams

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

Police, believing the car to be stolen and the driver intoxicated, stopped plaintiff's car and implemented high-risk procedures. Officers, equipped with body shields, identified themselves and loudly commanded the driver to show her hands and get out of the car. The driver did not comply, but reached for a compartment in the vehicle and lit a cigarette. She put her feet out of the driver-side window onto the door, while she leaned back toward the console. She picked up a water bottle and set it on the ground beside the car. Officers repeated the order for about 10 minutes before using an SL6 baton launcher to fire a warning shot that hit the vehicle. They continued to issue commands for five minutes, then fired four shots, hitting her legs. Plaintiff, who was highly intoxicated, required stitches and was unable to walk for a week. Her suit claiming excessive force resulted in a verdict in the officers' favor. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The officers had reason to know that they should mitigate the force being used in light of plaintiff's lack of resistance and were not entitled to qualified immunity.

http://j.st/dbN View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Seidel

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2490 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute controlled substance. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant, arguing that the warrant, based on a garbage pull conducted at his residence, was issued without probable cause. In the present case, the court had little hesitancy in concluding that a reasonable magistrate would conclude the materials found in the trash - nine spiral bound notebook pieces of paper that had ledgers on them, a syringe, and a metal paper clip that tested positive for marijuana - were sufficient to establish probable cause that defendant's residence and garage contained controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, pay sheets, currency, cellular telephones, and any other indicia of drug trafficking. The court also held that the deputy's recorded, sworn oral testimony was sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant and affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dVw View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Johnson v. Hobb

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1744 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Wollman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant appealed the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus where the district court determined that the petition was filed after the expiration of the one-year statute. Defendant's first petition was untimely and he did not seek leave to amend that petition. Given that defendant failed to file a timely petition and thereafter failed to move to amend his original untimely petition, the court held that he could not show that an extraordinary circumstance, external to himself and not attributable to his actions, prevented him from timely filing for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, the federal habeas application was untimely and the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dV3 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Bossany, Jr.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1037 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Arnold

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant pleaded guilty to money laundering and conspiring to commit honest-services mail fraud. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his participation in defrauding his employer, Best Buy, by assisting one of Best Buy's vendors. On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence, contending that the district court erred by denying him an acceptance of responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 and by sentencing him above the 60-month maximum for the conspiracy offense. The district court found that defendant's repeated false statements at a crucial point in the case were "all direct repudiations of his own guilt." Therefore, the court held that the perjured testimony went to the heart of the acceptance of responsibility, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant did not "clearly demonstrate" his willingness to take responsibility for his criminal conduct. The court agreed that the 90-month sentence for conspiracy exceeded the statutory maximum but concluded that the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dVS View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Vandebrake

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1390 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Bye

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of price fixing and one count of bid rigging in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1. Defendant subsequently appealed his sentence, contending that the district court abused its discretion by not accepting the binding plea agreement. Defendant also contended that the sentence of 48 months, as well as the amount of the fine, was substantively unreasonable. The court found no basis for concluding the final sentence was substantively unreasonable. The district court considered appropriate factors in varying from the guidelines and adequately explained its sentence. Similarly, the district court considered appropriate factors in selecting the fine amount, and adequately explained its chosen amount. Therefore, the court found no basis for concluding the amount of the fine was substantively unreasonable.

http://j.st/dES View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Popescu-Mateffy v. Holder, Jr.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2192 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Romania, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA determining that his state conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in a motor vehicle rendered him ineligible for waiver of inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 212h, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA's interpretation of section 1182(h)'s waiver for a "single offense of simple possession of... marijuana" as not including the possession of drug paraphernalia in a vehicle was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

http://j.st/dC6 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Troyer

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-3134 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Colloton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, White Collar Crime

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court impermissibly considered factors unrelated to his assistance to law enforcement and that the district court improperly refused to consider some of his assistance to law enforcement. Therefore, the court affirmed the sentence, holding that the district court did not commit plain error when it determined the extent of the downward departure under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1.

http://j.st/PkP View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Brown

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2586 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Wollman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Upon defendant's second revocation of his supervised release, the district court sentenced him to 90 days' imprisonment to be followed by 57 months' supervised release. Defendant contended that his sentence exceeded the maximum term of supervised release set forth in 21 U.S.C. 3583(b). The court concluded that defendant was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. 841, a statute which authorized supervised release terms exceeding five years and the terms of the relevant sentencing statute trumped the general terms of supervised release provided in section 3583(b). The court further held that the district court did not err in deducting only the 90-day term of imprisonment imposed in defendant's second revocation from his term of supervised release where the issue of deducting the 90-day term of imprisonment imposed in defendant's first revocation was decided in defendant's first appeal, and thus the law of the case doctrine applied to this proceeding. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.

http://j.st/Pks View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Neely v. McDaniel

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-3227 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Colloton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in Arkansas state court to sexual indecency with a child and later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted. Because defendant entered a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea, he could not challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 5-14-110 as applied in his case. The court also rejected defendant's claims that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and a violation of due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dCK View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Shekleton v. Eichenberger

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2108 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Shepherd

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a sheriff's deputy, individually and in his capacity as deputy, alleging that the deputy violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by unnecessarily tasering plaintiff. The deputy subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment as to the section 1983 individual capacity claim, asserting that plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court held that a reasonable officer would not have concluded that an argument occurred between plaintiff and another; plaintiff was an unarmed suspected misdemeanant who did not resist arrest, did not threaten the officer, did not attempt to run from him, and did not behave aggressively towards him. Therefore, tasering plaintiff under the circumstances was excessive force in violation of clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/Pkq View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Harrington, et al. v. Wilber, et al.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-3600 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Riley

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiffs sued various defendants, including police officers Larsen and Brown, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985, as well as state law, claiming that defendants violated their rights under the Iowa state investigation and prosecution of defendants for murder. The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' claims that they could be defeated if the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiffs. The officers subsequently appealed the district court's denial of their motion. Assuming a Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecution existed, such a right was not clearly established when plaintiffs were prosecuted in 1977 and 1978. Given this precedent, reasonable officers, in the officers' position here, could not have known in 1977 or 1978 that malicious prosecution violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on any Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution or prosecution without probable cause claims. The district court erred in denying the officers' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiffs' remaining claims.

http://j.st/dKR View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Burke v. Sullivan, et al.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2708 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Riley

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against officers of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department, claiming the officers unlawfully entered her home and detained her in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding the officers did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights and were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that it was reasonable for the officers to conclude their warrantless entry into plaintiff's home was lawful under the emergency aid exception or the community caretaker exception. The court further held that the officer's brief two-minute detention of plaintiff was lawful. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/PkS View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Zajrael v. Harmon, et al.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1180 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff, an Arkansas inmate, sued officials of the Arkansas Department of Corrections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his statutory and constitutional rights. Defendant, whose religious practice incorporated elements of Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, alleged that correctional officers seized a prayer cap, prayer rugs, thikr beads, and prayer oil from his cell, as well as religious texts and books. His amended complaint alleged that these actions violated his rights under RLUIPA and the First Amendment. The court held that section 1983 provided no cause of action against agents of the State acting in their official capacities and therefore, sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims for damages under RLUIPA. The court further held that plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was moot because he was transferred out of that facility. Because plaintiff was no longer subject to the policies that he challenged, there was no live case or controversy.

http://j.st/dCv View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Ruiz-Zarate, et al.

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1135, 11-1172, 11-1173 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Smith

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendants were convicted of conspiring to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and aiding and abetting in the possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Defendant Benavente-Zubia was also convicted of illegal re-entry after deportation. All three defendants appealed their sentences, and defendant Ruiz-Zarate and Guerrero-Ramirez also appealed their convictions. The court held that Ruiz-Zarate had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a truck driver's vehicle, which he neither owned nor was near at the time of the traffic stop and therefore could not raise a Fourth Amendment claim; a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ruiz-Zarate and Guerrero-Ramirez participated in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana, as well as aided and abetted in the possession with intent to distribute; the district court did not err in declining to give Ruiz-Zarate's proffered "mere presence" instruction to the jury; and the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement to all three defendants' sentences under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1).

http://j.st/dK6 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Molina-Gomes v. Welinski

Court: U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-2439 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Murphy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Plaintiff, trustee for the deceased, brought this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that an officer had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he shot the deceased as he was driving away from a narcotics investigation with the officer being dragged along with the car. The court concluded that the officer's use of deadly force did not violate the deceased's constitutional rights where, among other things, the reckless driving by the deceased in his attempt to escape was a danger to the arresting officers and to any drivers on the roadway and where the officer's use of force under the quickly evolving dangerous actions by the deceased was objectively reasonable under the circumstances as the officer perceived them. The court rejected the trustee's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dKE View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Dorsey

Court: U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-30278 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Gould

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts, two counts of operating a chop shop, and seventeen counts of trafficking in motor vehicles. The jury then convicted defendant of two related crimes: one count of witness tampering and one count of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Defendant subsequently appealed from the judgment and sentence on all counts. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the two witness' testimony about seeing defendant with a Glock or similar gun before the shooting; the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for a witness' credibility; because the detective's remark, though improper, did not prejudice defendant, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motions for mistrial and new trial; and because the sentencing range of defendant's 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A) conviction was ten years to life, the district court permissibly sentenced him to an 18-year term of imprisonment on Count 22. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

http://j.st/dKr View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Bader

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-1263 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Holmes

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Bader appealed his convictions of distribution of human growth hormone (HGH), conspiracy to knowingly facilitate and knowingly facilitating the sale of HGH brought into the United States contrary to law, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (testosterone cypionate). He asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse his convictions or, at a minimum, to grant him a new trial. Defendant also challenged the district court's forfeiture order requiring him to remit the $4.8 million in proceeds that he allegedly derived from his unlawful activity. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for distribution of HGH and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute testosterone cypionate, but reversed based upon instructional error his convictions for knowingly facilitating the sale of HGH imported into the United States contrary to law, and conspiring to do so. Further, in light of the Court's reversals, it concluded that the forfeiture judgment could not rest on its current statutory basis, but the Court left it to the district court in the first instance the task of determining the precise amount (if any) of the forfeiture judgment authorized by the remaining, upheld convictions.

http://j.st/PZ3 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Palma-Salazar v. Davis

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1070 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Murphy

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, International Law

Petitioner-Appellant Jesus Hector Palma-Salazar was indicted in 1995 for conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he was arrested in Mexico in 2002. After he was extradited to the United States pursuant to an extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico, Petitioner pled guilty and began serving his sentence. In 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his confinement at the Administrative Maximum Prison in Florence, Colorado (ADX). He alleged his confinement at ADX violated his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights and also the extradition treaty. The district court denied his petition. It concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider his Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims because they were challenges to the conditions of his confinement and must, therefore, be brought under "Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics," (403 U.S. 388 (1971)). It also concluded Petitioner's confinement at ADX did not violate the extradition treaty. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion.

http://j.st/djG View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Cope

Court: U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-1537 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Matheson

Areas of Law: Aviation, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

Defendant-Appellant Aaron Cope was convicted of one count of operating a common carrier (commercial airplane) under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction based on improper venue, insufficiency of the evidence, and improper reliance on federal regulations. In 2009, Defendant was the copilot and first officer of a commercial flight from Austin, Texas to Denver, Colorado. Robert Obodzinski was the captain. Following the flight to Austin, Mr. Obodzinski invited the crew to dinner, but Defendant declined, stating that he did not feel well. Mr. Obodzinski did not see Defendant again until the next morning in the hotel lobby. Mr. Obodzinski testified that "[Mr. Cope] had a little bit of a puffy face, and his eyes were a little red, and I assumed that since he said the night before he wasn't feeling well, that he was probably coming down with a cold." The pilots flew from Austin to Denver that morning without incident. While in the cockpit, Mr. Obodzinski detected occasional hints of the smell of alcohol. When they arrived in Denver, Mr. Obodzinski leaned over Defendant and "took a big whiff," concluding that the smell of alcohol was coming from Defendant Mr. Obodzinski contacted dispatch to delay the next leg of their flight, and contacted the airline's human resources officer. Defendant would later be indicted by the federal grand jury in Colorado. After a two-day bench trial, the district court convicted Mr. Cope and sentenced him to a below-guidelines sentence of six months in prison and two years of supervised release. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court had sufficient evidence to find that Defendant was "under the influence of alcohol," even if the district court relied on the FAA regulations or Republic Airways'[Defendant's employer] company policy, such reliance would have been harmless error.

http://j.st/djc View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Dept. of Corrections, et al.

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-12392 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, an Alabama prisoner on death row, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court found that petitioner's claim that Alabama's judicial override scheme violated the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was foreclosed by precedent. The court could not say that the decisions of the state trial and appellate courts, in regards to the mitigation evidence, were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established law. By presenting several relevant circumstances that in sum were sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination, petitioner met his burden of establishing a prima facie Batson v. Kentucky case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for the district court to complete the final two steps of the Batson proceedings.

http://j.st/dEq View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 10-14235 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Martin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Immigration Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, has lived in the United States since 1972 and in April 2004, he pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced to 96 months imprisonment for, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. At issue was whether the district court properly denied his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as successive and whether Padilla v. Kentucky announced a retroactively applicable new rule of law. The court held that the district court failed to issue Castro v. United States warnings when it recharacterized petitioner's July 2008 motion as a section 2255 petition. However, the court affirmed the district court on the ground that petitioner's July 2010 petition for post-conviction relief was untimely under section 2255. Accordingly, the court affirmed.

http://j.st/dVx View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

United States v. Johnson

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-11369 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Farris

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was before the court of a single incident of extreme domestic violence. At issue was whether the single incident of battery justified termination of supervised release. Defendant was present and represented by counsel; he neither objected nor did he or his counsel indicate by words or even body language that any language of the court's crystal clear holding was less than fully understood; and given the simple issue before the district court, the evidence and the reasons for revoking supervised release were clear. The court concluded that nothing more was required by the Constitution and affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dVg View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Stephens v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections, et al.

Court: U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Docket: 11-11727 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Per curiam

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner, a Florida prisoner on death row, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in sentencing him to death because his sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the Supreme Court jurisprudence laid out in Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona. Petitioner also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective at the guilt phase and at the penalty phase, and that the trial court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was operating under a conflict of interest by delegating the primary responsibility for litigating petitioner's case to counsel for his co-defendant. The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's resolution of petitioner's case was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Therefore, petitioner's habeas petition was denied.

http://j.st/dV8 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Sullivan v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR11-919 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Brown

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1997, Phillip Sullivan pled guilty to theft of property and was sentenced pursuant to the Community Punishment Act. In 2011, Sullivan filed a petition to seal the record in his theft-of-property case, claiming he was entitled to have his record expunged pursuant to the Act. The circuit court denied the petition, determining that it was without jurisdiction to grant the relief. In its order, the circuit court quoted from the version of the Act in effect in 1997 instead of the 2011 version. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Sullivan failed to object below to the application of the 2011 version of the Act and failed to raise any arguments on appeal in relation to the 1997 version, the Court could not engage in an interpretation of the 1997 version of the statute; and (2) the Court could not address the arguments that were raised by Sullivan on appeal in relation to the 2011 version of the Act because to do so would be to issue an advisory opinion on a version of the statute that had no application to the instant case.

http://j.st/dLh View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Croston v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR06-425 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Detrick Croston was convicted of aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motion for belated appeal. Petitioner subsequently tendered a motion for belated appeal of the same case. Before the Supreme Court was Petitioner's motion for rule on clerk seeking to have the clerk file the tendered motion for belated appeal. The Court denied the motion, holding (1) Petitioner did not demonstrate that there was good cause for his own failure to comply with the time limitations for filing his motion for belated appeal, and (2) Petitioner did not establish good cause to grant an exception to the rule that Petitioner was not entitled to file a subsequent motion for relief after his original motion for belated appeal was denied.

http://j.st/dug View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Carter v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR11-1301 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Nickol Carter entered a negotiated plea of guilty to aggravated robbery, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and robbery. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged that his guilty plea had been coerced and that the State had withheld material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and declared the motions he filed in connection with the appeal moot, holding that the circuit court correctly followed the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure during Appellant's plea hearing and that none of the allegedly withheld evidence would have prevented the circuit court from accepting the plea. Therefore, the denial of Appellant's petition was not an abuse of discretion.

http://j.st/duG View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Strain v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR10-888 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Rickey Strain was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and was sentenced to 300 months' incarceration. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a timely petition for postconviction relief, asserting, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the petition following an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the Court made specific errors of law or fact in its opinion. The Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing, holding that the opinion did not contain any errors of fact or law that would warrant granting the instant petition.

http://j.st/dLs View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Henington v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR11-523 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Goodson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Following a jury trial, Appellant Danny Henington was convicted of felony rape and sentenced to thirty-six years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant timely filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. The circuit court denied Appellant's petition without a hearing. Appellant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing and that the court's written findings constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's petition, as (1) the recorded demonstrated that counsel did not perform deficiently, and thus the circuit court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the court's written findings complied with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3.

http://j.st/dLg View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Lowe v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR11-863 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant James Lowe was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, setting forth nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other claims not cognizable in a petition for postconviction relief. The circuit court denied the petition. Appellant then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record and a motion for appointment of counsel. The Supreme Court denied the petition, dismissed the appeal, and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the postconviction relief petition, as Appellant did not include in facts that would demonstrate prejudice for any of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

http://j.st/dLW View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Howard v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR00-803 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Brown

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Timothy Howard was convicted by a jury of two counts of capital murder and one count of attempted capital murder. Howard was sentenced to death plus thirty years and a $15,000 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed Howard's convictions and sentences on all counts. After unsuccessfully seeking relief through several postconviction motions, Howard filed the current petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the circuit court for purposes of error coram nobis relief. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that Howard asserted two claims regarding the guilt phase that were appropriate for reinvesting the circuit court with jurisdiction, both of which were based on alleged Brady violations that had apparent merit. The claims were the State's failure to disclose a DNA report with handwritten notes showing potential errors made during the DNA testing of certain hairs and the State's failure to disclose a report from the Arkansas Crime Lab indicating that wood particles found on Howard's alleged work boots did not match the doors of the victims' home. The Court further granted the petition in regards to Howard's claim that mitigation evidence was withheld from him prior to trial.

http://j.st/dLQ View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Leach v. State

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Docket: CR11-932 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Gunter

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Raymond Leach was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, Appellant claimed five points warranted reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in denying Appellant's motion for directed verdict on capital murder, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to support the conviction; (2) in denying Appellant's motion to suppress his custodial statement, as the statement was freely and voluntarily given; and (3) by allowing a law-enforcement officer to testify regarding his personal observation at the crime scene. The Court held that the remainder of Appellant's arguments were not preserved for appellate review.

http://j.st/dLd View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

People v. Cornett

Court: California Supreme Court

Docket: S189733 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Cantil-Sakauye

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of seven felony sex offenses related to the molesting of his two stepdaughters, including one count of oral copulation of Jane Doe 1 in violation of Penal Code 288.7. Defendant claimed on appeal, among other things, that his section 288.7(b) conviction must be reversed and the count dismissed because Jane Doe 1 - who was 10 years and approximately 11 months old at the time of the molestation - was not "10 years of age or younger" within the meaning of section 288.7. The court concluded that the interpretation of the statutory phrase "10 years of age or younger" included children younger than 10 years of age and children who have reached their 10th birthday but who have not yet reached their 11th birthday. That is, "10 years of age or younger" as expressed by the Legislature in section 288.7 was another means of saying "under 11 years of age." Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it concluded defendant was improperly convicted of violating section 288.7(b) with respect to Jane Doe 1.

http://j.st/dKC View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

People v. Thomas

Court: California Supreme Court

Docket: S185305 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Liu

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant lived and sold drugs in Madera County; possessed a key and a receipt for a storage locker that was located in neighboring Fresno County; the storage locker contained drugs and a firearm. The Court of Appeal ruled that the drugs and firearm located in Fresno County did not provide a basis for prosecuting defendant in Madera County for possession for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court disagreed and concluded that Madera County was a proper venue in which to prosecute defendant because defendant committed preparatory acts in Madera County and because the effects of defendant's unlawful possession of the drugs and firearm found in the Fresno storage locker would be felt in Madera County.

http://j.st/PkH View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Padilla

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-30719 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Alejandro Padilla was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and therefore, Padilla's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea; but (2) insofar as the section 291E-61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Padilla did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, Padilla's conviction still stood.

http://j.st/dHW View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Bullard

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-10-0000069 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner Tommy Bullard was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII) in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court accepted Bullard's application for writ of certiorari and vacated the judgment of the ICA, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Nesmith, which holds that an OVUII charge under section 291E-61(a)(1) must allege mens rea, the ICA erred by concluding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge; and (2) without such allegation, Bullard's charge was fatally deficient. Remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

http://j.st/d9U View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Daniels

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-10-0000243 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner William Daniels was adjudged guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and therefore, Daniels' section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea; but (2) insofar as the section 291E-61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Daniels did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, Daniels' conviction still stood.

http://j.st/dHd View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Flynn

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-10-0000245 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Petitioner James Flynn was found guilty of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to State v. Nesmith, the ICA erred by concluding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and without such allegation, Flynn's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was fatally deficient; but (2) insofar as Flynn's conviction under the alternative charge based upon subsection 291E-61(a)(3) was sufficient, and insofar as Flynn did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, his conviction under subsection (a)(3) stood.

http://j.st/d9i View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Soria

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-10-0000253 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Emilio Soria was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the ICA's judgment, holding that pursuant to State v. Nesmith, which states that mens rea must be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge in order to provide fair notice of the nature and cause of the accusation, the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge. Therefore, Shinsato's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea. Remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

http://j.st/dHn View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Shinsato

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Docket: SCWC-30720 Opinion Date: April 30, 2012

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Rew Shinsato was adjudged guilty by the district court of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ICA gravely erred in holding that mens rea need not be alleged in a section 291E-61(a)(1) charge, and therefore, Shinsato's section 291E-61(a)(1) charge was deficient for failing to allege mens rea; but (2) insofar as the section 291E-61(a)(3) charge was sufficient, and insofar as Shinsato did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to that basis, Shinsato's conviction still stood.

http://j.st/dHs View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Portillo

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 102558 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Johnson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jose Portillo appealed his conviction for one count of rape of a child under age fourteen. At sentencing, recognizing that it had failed to properly charge Portillo with the off-grid version of the crime, the State filed a motion to amend the presentence investigation report to indicate that Jessica's Law applied and that Portillo was subject to a mandatory minimum hard-twenty-five life sentence. Ultimately, the district court found that the State's failure to charge Portillo with the off-grid offense version of the crime was mere clerical error and did not prejudice his defense and held that Portillo had been convicted of an off-grid felony. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Portillo's conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for the on-grid version of the crime; but (2) vacated Portillo's sentence, holding that because the information did not contain the essential element of the off-grid version of the crime, the omission rendered the information fatally defective and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to convict Portillo of the off-grid version of rape. Therefore, the district court's sentence, based upon a conviction for the off-grid offense, was error. Remanded for resentencing.

http://j.st/dE9 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Malone v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000491-MR Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Abramson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Kenneth Malone was convicted of murder and sentenced to thirty-two years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Malone was not denied an opportunity to present a complete defense when the trial court conditionally excluded evidence of the victim's and one of the witness's bad character, since Malone did not establish that the evidence was relevant to some issue in the case; (2) the trial court did not err by denying Malone's motion for a directed verdict; (3) the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on alternative theories of murder, as a combination murder instruction was appropriate and did not compromise Malone's right to a unanimous verdict; and (4) Malone's absence during the trial court's initial consideration of the deliberating jury's request for additional information did not entitle Malone to relief.

http://j.st/dLC View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. O'Conner

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000343-DG Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Cunningham

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Family Law

After Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services found Appellee Patrick O'Conner's children in filth, unsanitary living conditions, and misery in Appellee's home, Appellee was indicted by a grand jury for three counts of first-degree criminal abuse. Specifically, the grand jury charged that Appellee intentionally abused his three children, each of which were under the age of twelve at the time, by placing them in a situation that could have caused physical injury or which was cruel confinement or cruel punishment. Appellee was convicted as charged. The court of appeals reversed, declaring there was insufficient evidence to indicate that Appellee's criminal actions were intentional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals did not properly defer to the jury its proper fact-finding role in this case, as the jury had sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Appellee was guilty of first-degree criminal abuse. Remanded for reinstatement of the trial order and judgment.

http://j.st/dLa View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Blane v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000713-MR Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Scott

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A circuit court jury found Appellant Derryl Blane guilty of several drug-related offenses and of being a first-degree Persistent Felony Offender (PFO). The Supreme Court (1) reversed Appellant's conviction for trafficking in marijuana, eight ounces or more, holding that the trial court erred when, after granting Appellant's motion for a directed verdict on the charge of trafficking in marijuana within 1,000 yards of a school, it permitted the Commonwealth to amend the indictment to trafficking in marijuana, eight ounces or more; (2) reversed Appellant's conviction for first-degree PFO as to Count I of the indictment, as the facts necessary to convict Appellant of being a first-degree PFO as to Count I were incapable of being proved; (3) affirmed Appellant's remaining convictions; and (4) remanded for a new penalty phase, as the penalty phase introduction of the original dismissed charges from Appellant's prior convictions was erroneous.

http://j.st/dL7 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Buster v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2011-SC-000002-MR Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Noble

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Patricia Buster entered a conditional guilty plea to four counts of complicity to first-degree rape. Appellant's conditional guilty plea preserved her right to appeal the adverse ruling of the trial court on her motion to suppress her written confession given to police officers. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to suppress and vacated her conviction, holding that Appellant did not voluntarily waive her Miranda rights, as the police officers did not respect Appellant's invocation of her rights under the analysis set forth in Michigan v. Mosley. Remanded so that Appellant could withdraw her guilty plea.

http://j.st/dLL View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Clutter v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000630-MR Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Abramson

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant Raymond Clutter was convicted of murder and tampering with physical evidence and was found to be a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Clutter appealed, claiming that the trial court erred when it permitted a witness to testify about information provided by Clutter's then-attorney in pre-trial discussions with a law enforcement agent for the Commonwealth, arguing that the information constituted statements made during plea discussions and thus was inadmissible under Ky. R. Evid. 410(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony, as Rule 410(4) did not apply to bar the admission of the testimony.

http://j.st/dLE View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Singleton v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000078-DG Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Venters

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Joseph Singleton was charged with several drug-related offenses. All of the charges were based on evidence obtained by police officers after they stopped Appellant at a traffic checkpoint and searched his vehicle. The circuit court granted Appellant's motion to suppress the evidence, concluding that stopping a motorist at a traffic checkpoint without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing cannot be justified under the Fourth Amendment when the purpose of the checkpoint was unrelated to highway safety or border security. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the use of a traffic checkpoint to verify compliance with a city's sticker ordinance was similar in purpose to the checkpoints set up to ascertain compliance with driver's licensing and vehicle registration laws previously approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a traffic checkpoint established to detect violations of city ordinances such as the one involved here unreasonably intrudes upon the liberty interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. Remanded.

http://j.st/dLv View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Davis v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-SC-000108-MR Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Minton

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

A circuit court jury convicted Frederick Davis of first-degree manslaughter and first-degree attempted manslaughter. Davis appealed, contending (1) the trial court erred by empanelling a new jury to determine whether to run his sentences for the two crimes concurrently or consecutively; and (2) even if the trial court properly empanelled a new jury, it employed erroneous procedures for the second penalty phase. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court acted well within its discretion to conduct a trial when it empanelled a new jury to decide whether to run Davis's sentences concurrently or consecutively, in whole or in part; and (2) the trial court appropriately conducted the second penalty phase.

http://j.st/dLK View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

King v. Commonwealth

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2008-SC-000274-DG Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Schroder

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Police made a warrantless entry into an apartment occupied by Appellant Hollis King and discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The circuit court denied King's motion to suppress. King entered a conditional guilty plea to several drug-related offenses. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of King's motion to suppress, holding that if exigent circumstances existed when police heard sounds of movement after they knocked on the door of the apartment occupied by King, any exigency that did arise when police announced their presence was police-created and could not be relied upon as a justification for a warrantless entry. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) police may rely on exigent circumstances so long as the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, and (2) police in this case did not engage in any such conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court then remanded to determine whether exigent circumstances existed. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of King's motion to suppress and vacated King's conviction, holding that exigent circumstances did not exist when police made the warrantless entry. Remanded.

http://j.st/dLj View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Gould

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Levy

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Following a jury trial, Kirk Gould was convicted of gross sexual assault (Class A) and gross sexual assault (Class B). Gould appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly denied Gould's motion to suppress his confession as involuntary where the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Gould's confession was voluntary; (2) Gould was not denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor's alleged misrepresentation of the evidence in closing argument because the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying Gould's motions for a new trial and sanctions based on an alleged discovery violation.

http://j.st/d9p View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Abdul-Maleek v. State

Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Docket: 46/11 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Barbera

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Muhammad Abdul-Maleek was convicted in the district court of theft. Petitioner exercised his right to appeal and was afforded a de novo trial by jury in the circuit court. The jury likewise convicted Petitioner of left, and the circuit court imposed a more severe sentence than that imposed by the district court. Petitioner appealed, asserting that the circuit court impermissibly based his sentence on the fact that he exercised his right to appeal and receive a de novo jury trial. The Court of Appeals vacated the sentence, holding that Petitioner was entitled to resentencing because the court's comments at sentencing could cause a reasonable person to conclude that the sentence was based in part on Petitioner's exercise of his right to a de novo trial on appeal. Remanded for resentencing.

http://j.st/dak View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Genies v. State

Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Docket: 11/11 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Battaglia

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

While incarcerated, Petitioner Daniel Genies masturbated in sight of a female correctional officer, while smiling and making eye contact with her, despite her orders to stop. Genies was subsequently charged with committing the common law offense of indecent exposure and violating Md. Code Ann. Corr. Servs. 8-803, which prohibits an inmate with intent to harass a correctional officer from indecently exposing private parts of the inmate's body in the officer's presence. A jury acquitted Genies of the statutory offense but convicted him of the common law offense. The court of special appeals affirmed. Genies appealed, arguing that the statutory, specific intent crime preempted the field, with respect to indecent exposure by an inmate to a correctional officer, and thus the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the charge of common law indecent exposure. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in failing to dismiss the common law charge because section 8-803 was intended to serve as a discrete offense, supplementing rather than supplanting the common law, so both prevailed; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Genies's motion for a new trial without a hearing.

http://j.st/d9N View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Davis v. State

Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Docket: 59/11 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Harrell

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Montgomery County law enforcement officers, situated at a "listening post" in Montgomery County, and operating under an ex pare order issued by a judge of the county circuit court under the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, intercepted a mobile phone communication from a target mobile phone, caller, and receiver located in Virginia. As a result of the intercepted communication, the police seized from the caller, Tyrone Davis, controlled dangerous substances when he returned to his Maryland residence. Davis moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the wiretap order did not authorize interception of the extraterritorial communication. The hearing judge denied Davis's motion to suppress, citing federal case law defining the location of an "interception" as where the mobile communication was first intercepted or redirected and where it was first heard by law enforcement officers. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed after adopting the federal standard for determining the proper jurisdiction and scope for an ex parte wiretap order, holding that as long as the "listening post" where an officer first hears the intercepted communications is within the geographical jurisdiction of the court issuing the order, the interception is proper under the Maryland statute.

http://j.st/dFT View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. Negron

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Docket: SJC-10967 Opinion Date: May 2, 2012

Judge: Gants

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, aggravated burglary, and armed assault in a dwelling. Defendant subsequently sought to vacate the conviction of armed assault in a dwelling on the ground that it was duplicative of the conviction of aggravated burglary. The court concluded that defendant was entitled to challenge whether two of the convictions arising from his guilty plea were barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy, but that his challenge failed because the convictions of armed assault in a dwelling and aggravated burglary were not duplicative. Accordingly, the denial of defendant's motion to vacate his conviction was affirmed.

http://j.st/dy2 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Commonwealth v. Dotson

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Docket: SJC-10952 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Spina

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct and acquitted of assault as a result of a verbal altercation with her boyfriend. Defendant received two years of straight probation, with conditions, and subsequently appealed from her conviction. At issue was whether the 2009 amendment to G.L.c. 272, section 53, which became effective after defendant had engaged in disorderly conduct but before the time of her trial, and which changed the punishment for a first offense, constituted a repeal of the prior version of that statute but, pursuant to G.L.c. 4, section 6, Second, did not affect the punishment incurred before the repeal took affect. Rejecting defendant's arguments, the court held that it saw no clearly expressed intention by the Legislature to have the 2009 amendment to G.L.c. 272, section 53, apply retroactively. The fact that a defendant who committed the offense of disorderly conduct before July 1, 2009, was not entitled to the benefit of the 2009 amendment may be, in defendant's view, an unfair consequence of G.L.c. 4, section 6, Second, but it did not rise to the level of repugnancy.

http://j.st/dEp View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Davis v. Mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-CA-01770-SCT Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Dickinson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1992, Defendant Jeffrey Davis was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming, among other things, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase of his trial. Based on the evidence produced by Defendant's new counsel (evidence that was available to but never discovered or produced by his trial counsel), the Court reversed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief and remanded the case for a new sentencing trial.

http://j.st/PZw View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Hill v. Dir. of Revenue

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Docket: SC92288 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Teitelman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The director of revenue for the State revoked James Hill's driving privileges for a period of ten years beginning October 2000. In June 2005, Hill was convicted of the misdemeanor of possession of drug paraphernalia. In April 2011, Hill filed a petition for reinstatement of his driving privileges. The director asserted that Hill's 2005 conviction precluded reinstatement because Me. Rev. Stat. 302.060.1(9) barred reinstatement for persons convicted within the previous ten years of an offense related to alcohol, controlled substances or drugs. The trial court reinstated Hill's driving privileges and held that section 302.060.1(9) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court versed, holding that section 302.060.1(9) was not unconstitutionally vague given the facts in this case.

http://j.st/d9g View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Clark

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Docket: SC92003 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Price

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jermane Clark was convicted of first degree murder and armed criminal action. The prosecution's case against Clark depended principally on the testimony of two witnesses. One of the witnesses, Maurice Payne, claimed to have been an eyewitness to the murder. Previously, Payne had pleaded guilty to unrelated charges before the same judge who presided over Clark's murder trial. Payne admitted that he subjectively hoped that his testimony against Clark would favorably affect his sentence even though Payne's decision to testimony in Clark's case was not motivated by a plea agreement in his own case. Clark's attorney was not permitted to question Payne concerning this potential bias. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing Clark the opportunity to cross-examine Payne on whether he was biased, and there was a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial. Remanded.

http://j.st/d9Q View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Moore

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Docket: DA 11-0284 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Morris

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

A jury convicted George Moore of felony driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The district court sentenced Moore to thirteen months' incarceration followed by a suspended commitment to the department of corrections for five years. The court also imposed appointed counsel costs of $1,340, prosecution costs of $100, and jury costs of $1,447. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by failing to investigate Moore's financial circumstances, including his ability to pay the jury costs, appointed counsel costs, and prosecution costs. Remanded to the district court for a determination as to whether Moore could afford the appointed counsel costs, prosecution costs, and jury costs.

http://j.st/dFk View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Burns

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Docket: DA 11-0570 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Morris

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After Brandon Burns was charged with felony DUI, Burns entered into a non-binding plea agreement with the State requiring the State to recommend a fifteen year prison sentence with five years suspended. The plea agreement was silent as to any possible fine. During the sentencing hearing, the State abided by its promise to recommend a fifteen year sentence and further recommended a $5,000 fine. The district court issued the State's recommended sentence, including the fine. Burns subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that the $5,000 fine violated the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the fine did not violate the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established that Burns failed to object to the fine at every step of the process, and accordingly, the district court properly denied Burns's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

http://j.st/dyt View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Hardman

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Docket: DA 11-0044 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Baker

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jeffrey Hardman was found guilty by a jury of deliberate homicide and tampering with the evidence. The district court sentenced Hardman to 110 years in prison with no parole eligibility for thirty years. Hardman appealed his conviction and sought a new trial, arguing (1) the district court made numerous erroneous evidentiary rulings amounting to cumulative error and requiring reversal, and (2) under the due process clause, the court's one-sided evidentiary rulings prevented him from effectively rebutting the State's case and presenting a defense, violating his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly exercised its discretion in all but one of its evidentiary rulings, and therefore, cumulative error did not warrant reversal of Hardman's conviction; and (2) since the holding on the first issue controlled, the constitutional argument was not considered.

http://j.st/dFg View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Parminter

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Docket: S-11-765 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Connolly

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The State appealed from a district court order sentencing William Parminter to twelve to eighteen months in prison for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and twelve to fourteen months in prison for DUI, fourth offense. The court ordered that Parminter serve the sentences concurrently. The State appealed, arguing that the sentences were excessively lenient. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the sentences on Parminter because the sentences failed to adequately protect the public from Parminter and thus were excessively lenient. Remanded with directions to resentence Parminter to consecutive terms of five to five years and to revoke Parminter's license according to the applicable statutes.

http://j.st/dbT View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Ross

Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Docket: S-11-093 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Stephan

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Michael Ross was convicted by a jury of discharge of a firearm at a person, building, or occupied motor vehicle while in the proximity of a motor vehicle he had just exited, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. On direct appeal, the court of appeals determined the evidence was insufficient to support Ross' convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in reversing the convictions, as the evidence, when considered under the deferential standard of appellate review, was sufficient to support the three felony convictions challenged in this appeal.

http://j.st/dbq View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

State v. Huebler

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Docket: 50953 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Douglas

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Charles Huebler was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of lewdness with a child under fourteen years of age. Huebler subsequently filed an untimely post-conviction petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had good cause for his delay in filing the petition because the State improperly withheld surveillance videotapes that were exculpatory, which rendered his guilty plea involuntary. The district court granted relief to Huebler. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the State is required under Brady v. Maryland to disclose material exculpatory evidence within its possession to the defense before the entry of a guilty plea; (2) a defendant may challenge the validity of the guilty on the basis of the State's failure to make the required disclosure, but to succeed, the defendant must demonstrate the three components of a Brady violation in the context of a guilty plea; (3) as to the materiality component, the test is whether there is a reasonable probability that but for the State's failure to disclose the evidence the defendant would have refused to plead guilty and would have gone to trial; and (4) Huebler failed to demonstrate that the evidence was material under the materiality component.

http://j.st/dbG View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

New Hampshire v. Willey

Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Docket: 2010-578 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Conboy

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After a jury trial, Defendant Thomas Willey was convicted of one count of pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial or in the alternative, for further curative instructions to the jury. He also argued that the trial court sentenced him based upon improper considerations. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, but vacated his sentence: "[b]ecause [the Court could not] conclude either that the trial court 'clearly gave no weight' to the improper factors [the Court] identified, or that it would have imposed the same sentence but for any improper factors that it may have considered, [the Court] vacate[d] the defendant's sentence and remand[ed] for resentencing."

http://j.st/djS View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

People v Ramos

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Docket: 78 Opinion Date: May 1, 2012

Judge: Lippman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and the issue on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Defendant maintained that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to cause serious physical injury when he fired a gun into a crowd of people. The court held that a reasonable jury could have concluded that defendant fired his gun with the intent to cause serious physical injury and, as a result, caused the victim's death. The court rejected defendant's remaining claims and affirmed the judgment.

http://j.st/dVQ View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Oregon v. Miskell/Sinibaldi

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S059326 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Balmer

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendants Michael Miskell and Anthony Sinibaldi sought review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming their convictions for aggravated first-degree theft and second-degree burglary. The Supreme Court allowed their petition for review to consider one of the issues defendants raised in their consolidated appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress an audio recording of a conversation between defendants and a police informant, which the police made without first obtaining a court order. Upon review, the Court concluded that the police acted unlawfully in failing to seek a court order under ORS 9 133.726 before intercepting and recording the conversation, and that the recording should have been suppressed. The Court further concluded that the error was prejudicial. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

http://j.st/d2v View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Pennsylvania v. Au

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Docket: 32 MAP 2010 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Baer

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court allowed this appeal to review a superior court conclusion that a police-citizen encounter ripened into an investigative detention when an officer requested identification from several occupants in a vehicle. In 2007, Appellee John Au was arrested by a Ferguson Township officer and charged with possession of marijuana. Appellee sought the suppression of that evidence. According to the officer's testimony, it was unusual to see a car in the location at such time, and he decided to make further inquiry. The officer did not activate the emergency lights of his police cruiser, but he positioned his vehicle at an angle relative to the parked automobile so as to illuminate the passenger side. The officer said that he did so without blocking the egress of the vehicle, which he then approached, "probably with a flashlight." The common pleas court awarded suppression of the drug evidence. The court framed the issue as whether the arresting officer had the legal authority to approach the parked vehicle and ask for identification from the occupants when there was no evidence of any criminal activity or a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code. The superior court affirmed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the arresting officer's request for identification did not transform his encounter with Appellee into an unconstitutional investigatory detention. Accordingly, the Court reversed the superior court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

http://j.st/d6n View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Pennsylvania v. Johnson

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Docket: 608 CAP Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Eakin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Harve Johnson made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court nunc pro tunc following a jury's imposition of the death sentence for his conviction on first degree murder charges. At the penalty phase, the jury found two aggravating circumstances and one mitigating circumstance. The jury further found the aggravating circumstances outweighted the mitigating circumstance, and sentenced Appellant to death. Appellant raised fourteen issues on appeal, all implicating the admission of certain evidence and sufficiency of the admitted evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to prove each element of first degree murder. Furthermore, the Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court in admitting the evidence Appellant complained of at trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Appellant's conviction and sentence.

http://j.st/d68 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Pennsylvania v. Thomas

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Docket: 572 CAP Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Eakin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Appellant Leroy Thomas (a/k/a John Wayne) appealed an order that denied him post-conviction relief (PCRA). Appellant was convicted by jury of the first degree murder of Kenneth Rankine. At the penalty phase, the jury found one aggravating circumstance: Appellant had been previously convicted of murder. The jury found no mitigating circumstances and sentenced Appellant to death. Appellant filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel and insufficient evidence to support his conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Appellant failed to establish he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt he conspired with two others to kill the victim. Appellant then filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, was appointed new counsel, and filed an amended petition. Appellant appealed the denial of his PCRA petition ,raising eight issues. The Supreme Court took each of these issues in turn, and found that Appellant failed to establish the PCRA court abused its discretion in denying Appellant relief.

http://j.st/d6B View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Pennsylvania v. Wallace

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Docket: 52 EAP 2009 Opinion Date: April 26, 2012

Judge: Todd

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed whether there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of an anticipatory search warrant for Appellant Gregory Wallace's home. After review, the Court concluded conclude there was not and, thus, found the warrant, which authorized a search of Appellant's home after the completion of a controlled purchase by a confidential informant, violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court therefore reversed the order of the Superior Court and reinstated the order of the trial court which suppressed evidence seized from Appellant's home.

http://j.st/d6P View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Derderian v. Essex Ins. Co.

Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Docket: 09-358 Opinion Date: April 27, 2012

Judge: Suttell

Areas of Law: Contracts, Criminal Law, Insurance Law

This appeal concerned the 2003 fire that occurred at the Station nightclub, wherein one hundred people died. The nightclub was co-owned by Plaintiffs, Michael and Jeffrey Derderian. A grand jury returned separate criminal indictments against Plaintiffs on charges of involuntary manslaughter. Prior to the fire, Essex Insurance Company had issued an insurance policy to Michael. Plaintiffs demanded, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 12-28-5 and the policy, that Essex afford them a defense against the criminal prosecutions. When Essex refused, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Essex, seeking a declaratory judgment that the grand jury indictments against them constituted a suit as defined in the Essex policy and that, accordingly, Essex had a duty to provide them with a defense in the related criminal proceedings. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Essex. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the language of the policy clearly showed that the parties' intention when entering into the contract was that Essex would provide Plaintiffs with a defense only in civil proceedings in which bodily injury or property damage were alleged, and therefore, Essex had no duty to defend Plaintiffs in their criminal prosecutions.

http://j.st/da4 View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

In re A.C.

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Docket: 2011-057 Opinion Date: April 19, 2012

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Juvenile Defendant A.C. appealed an adjudication of delinquency. On the basis of an incident at school, the State filed a delinquency petition against him, alleging that he engaged in open and gross lewdness and lascivious conduct towards the complaining witness, A.R. A.C. raised several evidentiary issues and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's ruling. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling, and affirmed the adjudication of delinquency.

http://j.st/d6Z View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar

Washington v. Abdulle

Court: Washington Supreme Court

Docket: 84660-0 Opinion Date: May 3, 2012

Judge: Alexander

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court granted the State's petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed Respondent Yussuf Abdulle's first degree theft and forgery convictions based on "Washington v. Davis" (438 P.2d 185 (1968)). The State urged the Court to overrule "Davis", arguing that it is incorrect because it rests on the mistaken view that "Miranda" requires proof of waiver beyond a reasonable doubt and harmful because it keeps relevant evidence from the trier of fact. The Court agreed that "Davis" was incorrect in light of cases that issued from the United States Supreme Court following "Miranda." Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Respondent's convictions.

http://j.st/PZM View Case
View Case on: Justia  Google Scholar
Forward this email to a Friend
Forward to a Friend

Have friends who like law? Forward this email.

 Like Justia on Facebook
Find Us on Facebook

Like Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.

 Follow Justiacom on Twitter
Follow Us on Twitter

Follow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.
Justia.com Free Legal Information Portal www.Justia.com
Federal & State Case Law, Codes & Regs Law.Justia.com
US Federal Case Filings & Dockets Dockets.Justia.com
Daily Opinion Summaries Daily.Justia.com

You received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.

Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.

If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at notifications@justia.info.

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter or unsubscribe vacuvo@yahoo.com immediately here.

"Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043

Have a Happy Day! Hug the Pug © 2011, Justia Inc.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)