Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Melissa S. Bret was charged with theft by shoplifting goods valued at $500 or less and having two prior convictions for the same offense, which would classify the crime as a Class IV felony. A jury found her guilty of shoplifting property valued at $77.64. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court adjudged Bret guilty of theft by shoplifting, a Class IV felony, and sentenced her to 1 year’s imprisonment. However, no evidence was presented regarding Bret’s prior convictions, and the court did not make any findings about such convictions.The District Court for Douglas County initially adjudged Bret guilty of a Class IV felony based on the jury's verdict. During the sentencing hearing, the court and both parties proceeded under the assumption that Bret was being sentenced for a Class IV felony. The presentence investigation report also indicated that Bret was charged with and convicted of a Class IV felony. However, the court did not hold a separate enhancement hearing to determine the existence of prior convictions, nor did the State present evidence of such convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in enhancing Bret’s offense to a Class IV felony without evidence of prior convictions. The court held that the sentence imposed was illegal because it exceeded the permissible statutory penalty for a Class II misdemeanor, which is the correct classification based on the jury's finding of the value involved. The Supreme Court vacated Bret’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court also concluded that the State did not waive its right to seek enhancement and may attempt to prove Bret’s prior convictions on remand. View "State v. Bret" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse, involving two young victims, M.R. and E.R. The alleged crimes occurred while the defendant was babysitting the children during their mother's part-time evening job. M.R. disclosed the sexual assaults years later, and E.R. disclosed the physical abuse during a forensic interview. The defense argued that the children's memories were unreliable and that the defendant lacked the opportunity to commit the crimes.The trial court joined the charges for a single trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the joinder of charges, request a limiting instruction, and object to certain testimonies on hearsay and foundation grounds. He also claimed the trial court erred in overruling an objection to a witness's testimony about delayed disclosures of abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the charges were properly joined as they were "connected together" under the relevant statute, given the overlapping timeframes, locations, and witnesses. The court also held that the defendant failed to show prejudice from the joinder, as the evidence was cross-admissible for proper purposes, and the jury was instructed to consider each charge separately. The court found no merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the objections would likely have lacked merit or the evidence was cumulative. The court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness's testimony about delayed disclosures. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Corral" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jessica Warren, was convicted of driving after suspension or revocation, with death resulting, under RSA 263:64, V-a, following a jury trial in the Superior Court. On September 5, 2018, Warren, whose license was suspended, drove a minivan in Concord, passing a delivery truck that blocked a bike lane. Her minivan collided with a bicyclist, who died from the collision, and then veered into the opposite lane, hitting a curb and another vehicle.In the Superior Court, Warren requested a jury instruction that required the State to prove she knowingly committed the act that violated a rule of the road. The court, however, issued an instruction that did not require the State to prove any mental state regarding the "unlawful operation" element. Warren objected, but the court overruled her objection, and the jury convicted her.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. Warren argued that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that the "knowingly" mens rea applied to the "unlawful operation" element of RSA 263:64, V-a. The State contended that the statute omits a culpable mental state and that the "knowingly" mens rea is inapplicable to the "unlawful operation" element. The Supreme Court agreed with the State that the "knowingly" mens rea is inapplicable but concluded that "criminal negligence" is the appropriate mental state for the "unlawful operation" element. The court held that the trial court erred by not including this mens rea element in its jury instruction.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the conviction and remanded the case, holding that "criminal negligence" is the appropriate mens rea for the "unlawful operation" element of RSA 263:64, V-a. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

In 2009, Wesley Swick pled guilty to possessing a stolen firearm and was sentenced to 33 months in prison and two years of supervised release. His federal sentence was to run concurrently with longer state sentences. Swick was released from state prison in 2017 but did not report to federal probation as required. His failure to report went unnoticed until after his supervised release period should have ended. During this time, Swick committed several state crimes and served additional time in state prison.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas revoked Swick's supervised release based on his failure to report and subsequent criminal activities. The court asserted jurisdiction using the fugitive tolling doctrine, which pauses the supervised release period when a supervisee absconds from supervision. Swick was sentenced to 24 months in prison, to run consecutively with a separate federal sentence for a felon-in-possession charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that fugitive tolling applies to supervised release, meaning that Swick's supervised release period was tolled when he failed to report to probation. The court found sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Swick intentionally avoided supervision, as he did not report to federal probation despite knowing his obligation to do so. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to revoke Swick's supervised release and the imposition of the 24-month prison sentence. View "United States v. Swick" on Justia Law

Rick Coley and David Duggar were convicted by a jury on drug and firearm charges related to their involvement in a drug-trafficking conspiracy led by Jason Betts in Indianapolis. Coley and Duggar argued that their relationships with Betts were merely buyer-seller relationships, not conspiratorial agreements. Coley also contested the sufficiency of the evidence for his firearm conviction, and both defendants challenged the denial of their motion to sever the drug-trafficking counts from the firearms counts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the motion to sever, noting that the firearms were found in the defendants' rooms along with evidence of drug trafficking. The jury found Coley and Duggar guilty on all counts, and the judge denied their motions for acquittal, sentencing Coley to 360 months and Duggar to 276 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions, citing the recent en banc decision in United States v. Page, which established that repeated, distribution-quantity drug transactions alone can sustain a conspiracy conviction. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Coley's firearm conviction based on constructive possession, as the gun was found in his bedroom along with his personal items and drug-dealing implements.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the buyer-seller relationship, the sufficiency of the evidence for the firearm conviction, and the denial of the severance motion. The court concluded that the drug and firearm charges were properly joined and that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the severance motion. View "United States v Coley" on Justia Law

Investigators suspected Lamont Coleman of running a heroin operation from his apartment building in Gary, Indiana. They conducted fourteen controlled drug purchases using confidential informants and undercover officers. Evidence from these buys and surveillance led to a search warrant for Coleman’s apartment and a neighboring house he owned. The search uncovered drugs, money, and firearms, leading to Coleman’s conviction on most counts of the indictment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held a Franks hearing and denied Coleman’s motion to suppress evidence, finding sufficient probable cause for the search warrant. At trial, the jury convicted Coleman of being a felon in possession of a firearm, conspiring to distribute heroin, and possessing heroin with intent to distribute. The jury acquitted him of some drug distribution charges and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Coleman was sentenced to 240 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Coleman’s appeal, which included four claims. Coleman argued that the district court constructively amended his indictment by issuing generic jury instructions, the government withheld exculpatory information, the court improperly excluded an affidavit as evidence, and the court erred in considering acquitted conduct at sentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions on all grounds. The court found no prejudice from the alleged constructive amendment, determined that the new evidence about the surveillance recordings was not material, upheld the exclusion of Leroy Coleman’s affidavit due to its unreliability, and noted that current precedent allows the consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing. View "USA v Coleman" on Justia Law

The case involves codefendant brothers Joshua and Jamie Yafa, who were convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud for their involvement in a "pump-and-dump" stock manipulation scheme. They promoted the stock of Global Wholehealth Products Corporation (GWHP) through various means, including a "phone room" and social media, to inflate its price. Once the stock price rose significantly, they sold their shares, earning over $1 million. Following the sale, the stock price plummeted, causing significant losses to individual investors. A grand jury indicted the Yafas, along with their associates Charles Strongo and Brian Volmer, who pled guilty and testified against the Yafas at trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California sentenced the Yafas, applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 2B1.1. The court used Application Note 3(B) from the commentary to § 2B1.1, which allows courts to use the gain from the offense as an alternative measure for calculating loss when the actual loss cannot be reasonably determined. The district court found it difficult to calculate the full amount of investor losses and thus relied on the gain as a proxy. This resulted in a fourteen-level increase in the offense level for both brothers, leading to sentences of thirty-two months for Joshua and seventeen months for Jamie.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the term "loss" in § 2B1.1 is genuinely ambiguous and that Application Note 3(B)'s instruction to use gain as an alternative measure is a reasonable interpretation. The court concluded that the district court did not err in using the gain from the Yafas's offenses to calculate the loss and affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA V. YAFA" on Justia Law

In 1985, Douglas Carter was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Eva Olesen in Provo, Utah. There was no physical evidence linking Carter to the crime scene, but he signed a confession, and two witnesses, Epifanio and Lucia Tovar, provided testimony corroborating aspects of his confession. Decades later, the Tovars signed declarations stating that the police had threatened them, pressured them to make untrue statements, and instructed them to lie at Carter’s trial about financial support they had received from the police. Based on these revelations, Carter petitioned for postconviction relief.The Fourth Judicial District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found that Carter’s trial and sentencing were tainted by serious misconduct by the lead prosecutor, the lead investigator, and another police officer. The court found that the police had suborned perjury, threatened the Tovars with deportation and separation from their son, and provided them with financial assistance, which they were instructed to lie about. The prosecutor did not disclose this information to the defense or correct the false testimony at trial.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with the lower court’s findings. The court concluded that the State had violated Carter’s constitutional right to due process by suppressing evidence favorable to Carter and by failing to correct false testimony. The court determined that these violations prejudiced Carter at both the guilt and sentencing stages of his trial. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant Carter’s petition for postconviction relief, vacate his conviction and sentence, and order a new trial. View "Carter v. State" on Justia Law

Anthony Charles Deberry was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 108 months in prison. The incident occurred outside Born’s Bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, where Deberry had an altercation with a man named Turtle. Surveillance footage showed Deberry returning to the bar later that evening, and witnesses testified that he had a gun. A shootout ensued, and Deberry was seen on video with a gun, which he later hid under a parked car. Deberry claimed he was acting in self-defense, stating he wrestled the gun away from another man who shot him.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota instructed the jury that Deberry had to prove his justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury convicted Deberry, and he appealed, arguing that the burden of proof for his justification defense was misplaced and that his sentence enhancements for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and for obstructing justice were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Deberry’s justification defense did not negate his knowing possession of the firearm. The court affirmed the district court’s instruction that Deberry had the burden to prove his justification defense. Regarding the sentence enhancements, the court found no clear error in the district court’s application of enhancements for reckless discharge of a firearm and second-degree assault, as well as for obstructing justice. The court concluded that the district court’s findings were supported by the record and affirmed Deberry’s conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Deberry" on Justia Law

Walter Dushun Holmes, Jr. was indicted for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. His father, Walter Holmes, Sr., and Monetessa Packineau, among others, were also indicted. While Holmes Sr. and Packineau entered plea agreements, Holmes Jr. went to trial. During the trial, Holmes Jr. requested a sequestration order for witnesses, which was granted. The Government presented multiple witnesses, including Packineau and A.P., who testified about their drug transactions with Holmes Jr. Holmes Jr. attempted to call his father as a witness, but the court excluded Holmes Sr. due to a violation of the sequestration order, based on recorded jail phone calls. Holmes Jr. moved for a mistrial and later for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota sentenced Holmes Jr. to 188 months’ imprisonment. Holmes Jr. appealed, challenging the exclusion of his father’s testimony, the jury deliberation instructions, the denial of a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, and the reasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of Holmes Sr. as a witness, as Holmes Jr. had violated the sequestration order. The court also determined that the district court’s scheduling communications with the jury were not coercive and did not constitute supplemental jury instructions. Regarding the alleged Brady violation, the court held that the undisclosed evidence was cumulative of information already available to Holmes Jr., and thus, there was no violation. Finally, the court found that the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law