Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case concerns a man who, along with his wife, adopted two young girls through the foster care system. Years later, when one of the girls was nearly 17, she disclosed to a friend’s mother that she had been sexually abused by her adoptive father over several years. This disclosure led to a law enforcement investigation, during which the defendant voluntarily went to the sheriff’s department to “turn himself in.” He was subsequently interrogated by two officers in a closed interview room at the station. During the third segment of questioning, after persistent and increasingly accusatory interrogation techniques, the defendant confessed to engaging in sexual acts with one of the victims.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County heard pretrial motions regarding the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement. The prosecution sought to admit the statements, while the defense moved to suppress them, arguing they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court ruled the interrogation was not custodial and admitted the statements. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the victims and law enforcement, while the defense highlighted inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to over 120 years to life in prison.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court held that while the initial questioning was noncustodial, the interrogation became custodial during the third segment, at which point Miranda warnings were required but not given. The court found the admission of the confession was prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. NavaAdame" on Justia Law

In 1994, Karl Senser was fatally stabbed during a carjacking, following a series of related crimes. Law enforcement quickly identified Steven Thomas as a prime suspect and later arrested him, but although circumstantial evidence suggested Leon Daniel McInnis was Thomas’s accomplice, authorities did not believe they had enough evidence to charge McInnis with murder at that time. The investigation included interviews, lineups, and early DNA testing, but no physical evidence directly linked McInnis to the murder scene. McInnis ultimately pled guilty to a related carjacking, while Thomas was convicted of Senser’s murder.The Superior Court of San Diego County dismissed the murder charge against McInnis in 2023, after he argued that the 27-year delay in prosecution violated his state due process rights. The court found the delay negligent, reasoning that law enforcement could have tested key evidence, such as a napkin found at the scene, for DNA in 1994. The court also determined that the loss of eyewitnesses due to the passage of time prejudiced McInnis’s ability to defend himself, and that no remedy short of dismissal could cure this prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that, under California Supreme Court precedent, courts may not find negligence by second-guessing prosecutorial decisions about when sufficient evidence exists to file charges, how investigations are conducted, or how resources are allocated. The delay was deemed “investigative,” not negligent, because prosecutors waited until new DNA evidence provided a strong basis for charging McInnis. The appellate court remanded the case for the trial court to properly balance the prejudice to McInnis against the prosecution’s justification for the delay, and to consider alternative remedies. View "P. v. McInnis" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, while driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.18 percent, crashed into another vehicle, resulting in the deaths of three individuals and causing serious injury to a fourth person, Sarah S. The defendant was charged with multiple felonies, including three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, two counts of driving under the influence causing injury to Sarah, and two counts of perjury. He pled no contest to the perjury charges and was found guilty by a jury on all remaining counts.Following his conviction in San Mateo County Superior Court, the defendant was originally sentenced to 47 years and two months to life in prison. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal ordered corrections to the abstract of judgment but otherwise affirmed the conviction. After remittitur and resentencing, the trial court imposed a sentence of 47 years to life. The defendant appealed again, arguing that his convictions for driving under the influence causing injury should be dismissed as lesser included offenses of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and also challenged the trial court’s failure to specify the fines and fees imposed at resentencing.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, held that driving under the influence causing injury is not a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated when the offenses involve different victims. The court also found that the trial court erred by not itemizing the fines and fees imposed at resentencing. The appellate court remanded the matter for the trial court to specify the amount and statutory basis for each fine, fee, and assessment, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Demacedo" on Justia Law

Travis Rockhill was charged with the murder of Gary Matthews, who was shot outside a friend’s home and later died from his injuries. The prosecution presented evidence that Rockhill had a dispute with Matthews over a scooter sale and was angry with him prior to the shooting. The defense argued that another individual, Louie (“Primo”), was involved and that Rockhill was not the shooter. During Rockhill’s first trial, he made incriminating statements to the courtroom bailiff, but the prosecution did not introduce this evidence. The jury deadlocked, resulting in a mistrial.In the second trial, presided over by Judge Emily Cole, Rockhill testified in his own defense. After both sides rested, Judge Cole sent ex parte text messages to a former colleague at the District Attorney’s office, questioning why the prosecutor was not calling the bailiff as a rebuttal witness and suggesting someone should speak to the prosecutor about it. The prosecution did not act on this suggestion, and Rockhill was convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm enhancement. After the verdict, the prosecution disclosed Judge Cole’s ex parte communications to the defense. Judge Cole recused herself, acknowledging the impropriety but maintaining she had been impartial. Rockhill moved for a new trial based on judicial bias, but Judge Denise McLaughlin-Bennett of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied the motion, finding no intent to intervene in the proceedings and no impact on the verdict.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court held that Judge Cole’s ex parte communications constituted a due process violation and structural error, as they demonstrated an unconstitutional probability of actual judicial bias. The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, directing the lower court to grant Rockhill’s motion for a new trial. View "P. v. Rockhill" on Justia Law

Sara Lynn Krueger was charged with the murder of her young daughter, Kayleigh S., in Napa County, California. The prosecution alleged that the murder was committed by torture, and Krueger was tried on the theory that she either directly committed the crimes or aided and abetted her codefendant. The jury was instructed only on first degree murder by torture and not on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In May 2017, the jury found Krueger guilty of first degree murder by torture and assault causing death of a child, but the special circumstance finding of torture was later reversed on direct appeal due to insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill. The conviction for first degree murder was otherwise affirmed, and Krueger was sentenced to 25 years to life.Following legislative changes enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437, which limited certain theories of murder liability, Krueger filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, arguing she was eligible for relief because the jury instructions allegedly permitted malice to be imputed based solely on her participation in torture. The Superior Court of Napa County denied her petition at the prima facie stage, finding she was ineligible for relief as a matter of law since she was not convicted under any theory affected by the statutory amendments.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Krueger’s petition. The appellate court held that Krueger was prosecuted and convicted solely under a theory of first degree murder by torture, which remains valid after Senate Bill 1437. The jury’s findings and instructions required proof of a mental state more culpable than malice, and thus, Krueger could still be convicted under current law. The court concluded she was ineligible for resentencing relief under section 1172.6. View "P. v. Krueger" on Justia Law

The case concerns Ryan Scott Warner, who was charged with the murder of Kayleigh S., the young daughter of his codefendant, Sara Lynn Krueger. The prosecution alleged that Warner either directly committed the murder or aided and abetted Krueger, with the sole theory presented to the jury being first degree murder by torture. The jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In 2017, Warner was found guilty of first degree murder by torture and assault causing death of a child. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the special circumstance finding due to insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill but affirmed the murder conviction, finding ample evidence of intent to inflict extreme pain for a sadistic purpose.Following legislative changes enacted by Senate Bill No. 1437, which amended California’s murder statutes to eliminate certain forms of accomplice liability and imputed malice, Warner petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The Superior Court of Napa County denied his petition at the prima facie stage, concluding Warner had not shown he could not be convicted of murder under the amended statutes. Warner appealed, arguing the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding and that the jury instructions permitted conviction on an impermissible theory of imputed malice.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, independently reviewed the record and affirmed the denial of Warner’s petition. The court held that Warner was prosecuted and convicted solely under a theory of murder liability—first degree murder by torture—that remains valid after Senate Bill No. 1437. The jury’s findings necessarily established the required mental state for murder under current law, and Warner was not convicted under any theory affected by the statutory changes. Therefore, Warner is ineligible for resentencing relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. View "P. v. Warner" on Justia Law

A man was charged with illegal possession of ammunition after police stopped a car in which he was a passenger late at night, citing a non-functioning license plate light and tinted windows. During the stop, officers asked both occupants if they were on parole or probation, ordered them out of the vehicle, and conducted pat searches, citing low lighting and baggy clothing as reasons. A search of a backpack near the passenger seat revealed ammunition and documents with the passenger’s name. The passenger, who had prior felony convictions, was arrested. During the encounter, officers used slang and whistled at both the passenger and two Latino men passing by.The Santa Clara County Superior Court initially denied the passenger’s motion under the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), finding he had not made a prima facie showing that the officers’ actions were motivated by racial bias. After the California Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ requiring reconsideration and a detailed ruling on all claims, the trial court again denied the motion, concluding that the allegations were conclusory or unsupported.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and held that the passenger had made a prima facie showing under the RJA. The court found that, when considering the totality of the facts—including expert testimony, statistical evidence, and the officers’ language and conduct—there was a substantial likelihood that law enforcement exhibited bias based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. The court clarified that at the prima facie stage, the trial court should not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations, but should accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are conclusory or contradicted by the record. The appellate court issued a writ directing the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the RJA motion. View "Hernandez v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In 2008, a jury convicted the petitioner of multiple serious offenses, including two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder of police officers, infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and attempted arson. The trial court imposed a lengthy custodial sentence, including consecutive and concurrent life terms, as well as additional years for other offenses. The court also imposed an $8,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, ordered $1,700 in direct victim restitution, and assessed a court security fee.Following the conviction, the petitioner’s judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Years later, the California Legislature amended the law to provide that restitution fines imposed under section 1202.4 become unenforceable and uncollectible after 10 years, and the portion of the judgment imposing such fines is vacated. The petitioner sought relief by filing a habeas corpus petition, arguing that the statutory vacatur of the restitution fine required a full resentencing and that habeas was the proper vehicle to effectuate this change.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that the statutory vacatur of the restitution fine under section 1465.9(d) does not trigger the full resentencing rule. The court reasoned that the statute only vacates the portion of the judgment imposing the fine, not the entire sentence, and does not affect the custodial components. The court further held that a postjudgment motion in the trial court, rather than a habeas petition, is the appropriate method to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the vacatur of the restitution fine. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was therefore denied. View "In re Mattison" on Justia Law

A man was charged with multiple sexual offenses, including forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, unlawful intercourse, and incest, all involving his 17-year-old immediate relative. The alleged incident occurred when the defendant stayed overnight at the victim’s home, entered her bedroom, and engaged in sexual acts without her consent. The victim testified about the charged incident and two prior uncharged incidents involving the defendant, one when she was eight years old and another a few weeks before the charged offenses. The defendant denied all wrongdoing and provided alternative explanations for his actions. The prosecution presented expert testimony on the psychology of child sexual assault victims and admitted evidence of the defendant’s statements during pretext phone calls.The Monterey County Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison, with sentences for unlawful intercourse and incest stayed. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for some counts, improper jury instructions regarding the definition of force, erroneous admission of uncharged acts, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to certain evidence and testimony.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, found that the trial court erred by granting the prosecution’s request to modify the pattern jury instructions on the definition of force, which misled the jury regarding an essential element of the forcible rape and forcible oral copulation charges. This error was deemed prejudicial, requiring reversal and remand for possible retrial on those counts. The court found sufficient evidence supported the convictions for unlawful intercourse and incest, and that other asserted errors were either harmless or did not constitute ineffective assistance. The convictions for unlawful intercourse and incest were affirmed, while the convictions for forcible rape and forcible oral copulation were reversed and remanded. View "P. v. Melgoza" on Justia Law

Raymundo Gomez was accused of committing lewd acts against three children at a public swimming pool. The key incidents involved Gomez allegedly bringing a 14-year-old boy’s hand into contact with his genitals and, separately, touching an eight-year-old girl, Katrina, on her buttocks and hip. The prosecution’s case against Gomez relied heavily on Katrina’s prior statements, including her preliminary hearing testimony and a forensic interview, as she did not testify at trial. Katrina’s mother objected to bringing her to court, citing concerns about the emotional impact on her daughter and her reluctance to have Katrina relive the experience in a courtroom setting.The Superior Court of San Diego County found Katrina unavailable to testify after hearing from her mother, who expressed that she did not want Katrina to participate further in the proceedings. The court allowed Katrina’s prior statements to be admitted at trial. The jury convicted Gomez of the offenses against Kane and Katrina but acquitted him of the offense against a third child. Gomez appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in finding Katrina unavailable and admitting her prior statements, thus violating his constitutional rights.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish Katrina’s unavailability as a witness because the record did not show that her mother’s refusal to bring her to court was unequivocal or that all reasonable efforts to secure her testimony had been exhausted. The court found this error prejudicial and concluded that the admission of Katrina’s prior statements violated Gomez’s confrontation rights. As a result, the court reversed the convictions on all three lewd act counts and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "P. v. Gomez" on Justia Law