Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Defendant was effectively sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) allowing the State to present an expert witness on the issue of Gamma-Hydroxybutyrate intoxication; (2) not allowing Defendant to introduce evidence or question a State witness on what activity took place immediately prior to the victim going into the house where she was allegedly assaulted; (3) allowing the jury to consider both second degree sexual assault and third degree sexual assault based on the evidence; and (4) allowing the bailiff to have a conversation with a juror about a potential witness. View "State v. Wakefield" on Justia Law

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and two counts of sexual assault. Petitioner’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus was unsuccessful. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on the results of new DNA testing that excluded Petitioner as either a primary or secondary sperm contributor. The circuit court denied relief. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose an exculpatory DNA report it possessed more than six weeks prior to the final plea hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State’s failure to disclose favorable DNA test results obtained six weeks prior to Petitioner’s plea hearing violated Petitioner’s due process rights, and the error was prejudicial. View "Buffey v. Ballard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder without a recommendation of mercy, attempted murder, and malicious wounding. The Supreme Court affirmed with one exception, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Petitioner’s convictions; (2) the circuit court did not admit unfairly prejudicial evidence during the mercy phase of Defendant’s bifurcated trial; (3) Petitioner failed to prove misconduct with regard to an alleged pre-deliberation conversation among jurors during trial; but (4) the circuit court abused its discretion by unduly restricting Petitioner’s opportunity to attempt to prove his claim that a juror communicated with the surviving victim during trial recesses. Remanded for an additional post-trial hearing on the single issue of juror misconduct. View "State v. Jenner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fleeing in a vehicle, possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (cocaine), and possession with intent to deliver a schedule II controlled substance (methamphetamine). Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence a police officer discovered upon searching Defendant’s vehicle, arguing that no probable cause existed for either the traffic stop or the subsequent search. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and resultant sentences and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle was unlawful, and therefore, the circuit court erred by not suppressing the evidence found during that search. View "State v. Noel" on Justia Law

A criminal complaint was filed in magistrate court charging Respondent with conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, which is a felony. Before the preliminary hearing commenced, the State filed a motion with the magistrate court seeking to dismiss the criminal complaint without prejudice. The magistrate court granted the motion to dismiss the criminal complaint. Respondent subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking the circuit court to require the magistrate to hold a preliminary hearing for Respondent. The circuit court ruled that Respondent was entitled to a preliminary hearing provided the hearing could be held prior to the return of an indictment against her. The court reasoned that a magistrate may not dismiss a felony charge before holding a preliminary hearing where the State might seek an indictment for the alleged criminal conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the facts of this case, Respondent did not have a clear legal right to a preliminary hearing, and the magistrate had no legal duty to provide such a hearing. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law