Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of and sentenced for felony murder predicated on the underlying felony of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim. On appeal, defendant asserted that he was denied ineffective assistance of trial counsel when counsel failed to understand and challenge expert testimony regarding how far gunpowder could travel and when counsel neglected to request a jury instruction as to whether the felony underlying his felony murder conviction was inherently dangerous. The court held that counsel's strategic decision to not contradict the expert's testimony and counsel's failure to request an inherently dangerous charge did not prejudice the defense. Accordingly, the court found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction of felony murder. The court held that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress his custody statements to the authorities was not erroneous where his questions regarding counsel were equivocal and did not trigger any duty on the part of the police to stop the interrogation. The court also held that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant's speculation that error may have occurred, when counsel failed to have the voir dire and opening and closing statements transcribed, was insufficient to show any deficiency on the part of counsel, or prejudice therefore, and was insufficient to show reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant Disharoon and his girlfriend, Defendant McIntyre, were convicted on several charges involving sex with a minor. At issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that no violation of the Confrontation Clause occurred where an expert was allowed to testify about the results of DNA testing when that testifying expert was not the one who performed every step of the test. Because the present cases did not involve facts and circumstances that were controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Court of Appeals did not err in holding that it was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause to allow the expert's testimony in these cases. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant pled guilty to all crimes charged related to the attempted armed robbery and murder of the victim in the victim's restaurant. The court held that the trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights by sentencing him to life without parole. The court rejected defendant's contention that because he had just turned 20-years-old when he committed the crime, his sentence of life without parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his conviction for felony murder with the underlying felony being aggravated assault and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony. Since it was not necessary in this case to instruct the jury on no duty to retreat in conjunction with defendant's sole defense of justification, the first prong of the State v. Kelly "plain error test" was not met. The court also held that the trial court did not err by accepting the jury's verdict where the jury was properly instructed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant appealed his convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the fatal shooting of the victim. Defendant challenged his conviction on multiple grounds: that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts; that the prosecutor made improper statements in closing argument; that the trial court failed to cure the prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's improper statements; that a witness's immunity agreement was improperly sent to the jury during deliberations; that the trial court twice delivered improper Allen charges to the jury; that the trial court provided incomplete instructions regarding aggravated assault and the defense of alibi; that the trial court rendered ineffective assistance; and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. The court found the challenges were without merit and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was indicted for the malice murder of the victim, an alternative count of felony murder during the commission of aggravated assault, and the aggravated assault and battery of the victim's sister. After a jury trial, defendant was acquitted of malice murder and found guilty of the remaining counts. A motion for new trial was denied, but the trial court vacated the sentence for aggravated assault pursuant to a concession by the state. The court rejected defendant's claims on appeal that the felony murder count on the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the predicate offense of aggravated assault; that the trail court erred in admitting evidence of a similar transaction; and that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder and related crimes in connection with the shooting deaths of two victims. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, alleging reversible error in certain jury instructions and in the trial court's failure to merge several of his convictions. The court found no error in the jury charge but vacated one count of aggravated assault, which should have been merged into the malice murder conviction.

Defendant appealed his conviction for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. Defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the trial court erred by admitting similar transaction evidence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find defendant guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant's prior conviction for arson where the State offered the evidence to show defendant's bent of mind or course of conduct in using escalating degrees of violence toward women. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was convicted of the malice murder and aggravated assault of his wife and sentenced to life in prison. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial, asserting that the trial court erred by admitting similar transaction evidence and evidence of statements made by the victim regarding prior difficulties. The court concluded that any prejudice from the age of the similar transactions evidence at issue was outweighed by the probative value of the evidence. The court also concluded that there was no error in admitting the testimony of defendant's cell-mate because the evidence was sufficient to establish the required similarity between the charged crimes and the attack on the cellmate and was probative of defendant's bent of mind and course of conduct. The court did not err in permitting several witnesses to testify about the statements the victim made pertaining to prior difficulties between defendant and the victim where the hearsay testimony was either admissible under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule or its admission constituted harmless error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.