Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Wesley Panighetti and Jill Doe met in 2000 and began dating. According to the Court, the couple practiced bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism (BDSM) together. When defendant went beyond the scope of Jill’s consent, his conduct became criminal. A jury rejected the argument that, by virtue of a written agreement to consent to BDSM at all times, Jill had irrevocably agreed to allow defendant to dominate all aspects of her life. The jury found him guilty of multiple sex offenses, attempting to dissuade a witness, and residential burglary. He challenged those convictions, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his multiple requests for new counsel pursuant to California v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (1970); (2) instructing the jury it could consider prior uncharged offenses involving Jill Doe; (3) inflicting cruel and unusual punishment in imposing a 280 year-to-life sentence; and (4) failing to calculate and award presentence custody credit. After review, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to award presentence custody credit but otherwise affirmed. View "California v. Panighetti" on Justia Law

Bauer worked as a physician for over 50 years, most recently in pain management at ANA. Bauer’s practice, which included regular prescribing controlled substances, became the subject of a DEA investigation. Bauer was indicted for knowingly or intentionally” distributing or dispensing controlled substances “except as authorized,” 21 U.S.C. 841(a), concerning 14 patients. The prosecution’s expert, Dr. King, opined that Bauer did not sufficiently establish a diagnosis and ignored “red flags.” Each patient had a history of at least two mental health conditions; several had histories of illegal drug use. Bauer drastically exceeded recommended thresholds and prescribed opioids together with other controlled substances. One patient died from an accidental overdose. None showed improvement. A drug task force officer alerted Bauer that a patient was selling his pills. Bauer did not terminate the patient but provided additional prescriptions. Several pharmacies would not fill his prescriptions. Dr. King opined that Bauer prescribed opioids “in most cases” to support “addiction and dependency,” “without a legitimate medical purpose.”The Sixth Circuit affirmed Bauer’s convictions and 60-month sentence (below the Guidelines range). A jury could reasonably find that Bauer knew his prescriptions were without authorization, satisfying the mens rea requirement clarified by the Supreme Court in 2022. The district court did not plainly err in its jury instruction on the good-faith defense. The court rejected Bauer’s challenges to the exclusion of his proffered expert witnesses and his argument that he had a constitutional right to testify as an expert in his own defense. View "United States v. Bauer" on Justia Law

After Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court designated him an armed career criminal and sentenced him to 180 months in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his predicate offenses were not committed on different occasions, a requirement for the armed career criminal sentencing enhancement. Alternatively, Defendant argued that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to find that he committed his predicate offenses on different occasions.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Defendant’s PSR shows a 2004 burglary conviction and two 2006 battery convictions. According to charging documents, the battery offenses involved different victims and occurred on different days, one on or about March 8 and the other on or about March 11. Defendant argued that the 2006 convictions were committed on the same occasion because he was arrested and convicted on the same dates for both offenses. The court explained that the multi-day gap separating the battery offenses strongly supports a finding that Defendant committed them on different occasions. Accordingly, the court held that all things considered, the district court did not err when it concluded that Defendant committed his prior offenses on different occasions. View "United States v. Christopher Stowell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction, holding that the district court erred in ruling that the motion was untimely but that the error was harmless.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of several crimes, including aggravated burglary. The court sentenced Defendant to a total of twelve to twenty years followed by seven years of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in ruling that Defendant's motion for sentence reduction was untimely, but the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for sentence reduction. View "Buckingham v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of misdemeanor shoplifting and her sentence of a $100 fine, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and that the county court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding an out-of-court statement. The district court affirmed, holding, among other things, that the hearsay statement was properly admitted under the hearsay exception in Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-803(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's hearsay exception and allowing the disputed testimony; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Reznicek" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the Mississippi Legislature’s passing and the Governor’s signing of House Bill 1020. The catalyst for the Legislature’s passing of House Bill 1020 was described as the “sweltering, undisputed and suffocating” crime problem in Jackson, Mississippi—a problem that has “crippled the criminal justice system.” While political and social controversy surrounded this bill, the bulk of the bill’s provisions, which are aimed at improving public safety and bolstering judicial resources in Jackson, were not at issue. Section 1 of House Bill 1020, directed the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Chief Justice to appoint four additional (and unelected) circuit judges to the existing Seventh Circuit Court District—the district comprised of the City of Jackson and all of Hinds County—for a term ending December 31, 2026. The second challenged provision, Section 4 of House Bill 1020, was a more ambitious endeavor that created a new statutory inferior court, much like a municipal court, to serve the CCID. Petitioners, and Jackson residents, Ann Saunders, Sabreen Sharrief, and Dorothy Triplett (collectively, Saunders) claimed both provisions violated Mississippi’s Constitution. The Hinds County Chancellor J. Dewayne Thomas, who held hearings on Saunders’s challenges, disagreed and dismissed her complaint. Saunders appealed. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with the chancellor that the creation of the CCID inferior court in Section 4 of House Bill 1020 was constitutional. But the Court agreed with Saunders that Section 1’s creation of four new appointed “temporary special circuit judges” in the Seventh Circuit Court District for a specified, almost-four-year term violated the State Constitution’s requirement that circuit judges be elected for a four-year term. View "Saunders, et al. v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Rita Ann Jenkins appealed her conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), third offense. She argued the trial judge erred by granting a jury instruction that eliminated the prosecution’s burden to prove she was “driving in a state of intoxication that lessen[ed] [her] normal ability for clarity and control.” She also argued the trial judge erred by denying a jury instruction that presented her theory of defense. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Jenkins’ conviction and sentence. View "Jenkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A Border Patrol Agent was conducting inspections and noticed two people in a truck. At trial, the Agent testified that he first asked the driver, Defendant, whether he was a United States citizen. Defendant responded that he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Defendant answered that the passenger was his wife and a United States citizen, and he gave the Agent a marriage certificate. After looking at the marriage certificate, the Agent asked the passenger if she was legally present in the United States, and she said that she was not. A jury found Defendant guilty of transporting within the United States an alien who “has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law.” On appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction as based on insufficient evidence. Defendant argued that the Government failed to prove the first element of this offense.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a rational jury could infer that Defendant illegally entered or remained in the United States from the testimony confirming that she was illegally present in the country. When the Agent asked the passenger if she was illegally present, she answered yes. During Defendant’s post-arrest interview, Defendant said that he heard from the passenger that she was “illegal.” And the passenger corroborated at trial that Defendant knew that she was in the United States illegally when he went to pick her up. View "USA v. Irias-Romero" on Justia Law

In August 2010, after the California v. Samaniego, 174 Cal.App.4th 1148 (2009) and California v. Nero, 181 Cal.App.4th 504 (2010) were decided, defendant Brandon Burns was convicted on one count of first degree murder arising out of his participation with a codefendant in a gang-related shooting. The jury was instructed using the now-disapproved version of CALCRIM No. 400, but his counsel did not argue he was guilty of a lesser crime than the codefendant. Neither did the attorney argue the instruction was given in error. In 2022 however, Burns petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, claiming he “could not presently be convicted of murder…because of changes made to [sections] 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.” He argued that based on the error in former CALCRIM No. 400, the jury might have convicted him based on some “other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.” This possibility, he argued, required he be granted an evidentiary hearing. Even accepting Burns’ argument regarding the flaw in the earlier version of CALCRIM No. 400, the Court of Appeal found the alleged error he identified had nothing to do with the 2018 and 2021 legislative changes that gave rise to section 1172.6’s petition process. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Burns failed to establish a prima facile case for relief under section 1172.6. View "California v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ petition filed by Petitioner challenging the decision of the Las Vegas Municipal Court denying Petitioner's request for attorney fees and litigation expenses after criminal charges against him were dismissed and withdrawn, holding that the municipal court correctly determined that it lacked authority to award attorney fees and litigation expenses.Petitioner was arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer and a traffic violation. Petitioner successfully moved to dismiss the obstruction charge, and the traffic violation charge was subsequently withdrawn. Petitioner then filed an application for attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.0393. The municipal court denied the request for lack of authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that municipal courts lack authority under section 41.0393 to award attorney fees and litigation expenses to the prevailing party in a criminal action. View "Patterson v. Las Vegas Municipal Court" on Justia Law