Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A man was charged with murder after fatally shooting another individual in a restaurant. The defendant admitted to the shooting but claimed he acted in self-defense, believing the victim was reaching for a weapon, though the victim was unarmed. The incident followed a series of escalating personal disputes involving the defendant, his friend, and the victim. On the night of the shooting, the defendant and his companions sought out the victim at a restaurant, where a confrontation ensued, culminating in the shooting.The case was tried in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County. At trial, the defendant requested a jury instruction clarifying that actual danger is not required for self-defense—only the appearance of danger is necessary. The court declined to give this specific instruction, reasoning that the concept was already covered by the standard self-defense instructions. The defendant’s counsel was permitted to argue this point in closing. The jury convicted the defendant of murder and felony discharge of a firearm. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing his proposed instruction and that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to witnesses referring to the decedent as “victim” and to the admission of an emotional 911 call.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the defendant’s proposed jury instruction, as the instructions given adequately covered the law of self-defense. The court also found that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, as the use of the term “victim” by witnesses was not unreasonable in context, and the admission of the 911 call did not prejudice the outcome. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

In 2001, Joseph Jackson, then twenty years old, was involved in a drug-related conflict in southeast Washington, D.C. After being told by a rival dealer, Larry Smith, that he could no longer sell drugs in the area, Jackson instructed his associate, Troy Ashley, to “handle that.” Ashley, with the help of Jason Parker, confronted Smith and his associates, resulting in Ashley shooting and killing Smith and robbing and shooting the other two men. Ashley and Parker reported back to Jackson, who expressed excitement and rewarded Parker with drugs. Jackson was subsequently convicted by a jury in 2003 of first-degree premeditated murder, armed robbery, and other offenses.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals previously affirmed Jackson’s convictions and remanded for merger of offenses and resentencing, after which Jackson received a thirty-five-year prison term. In 2023, Jackson moved in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for a sentence reduction under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA), arguing that he had matured and was no longer dangerous. The government opposed, citing Jackson’s extensive record of violent and nonviolent disciplinary infractions during incarceration, including assaults and possession of contraband. The Superior Court found Jackson met the threshold for IRAA consideration but, after reviewing the statutory factors, determined that his continued infractions and lack of rehabilitation weighed against sentence reduction. The court denied the motion, finding Jackson remained a danger and that the interests of justice did not warrant modification.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion. The court held that the Superior Court properly considered the relevant IRAA factors, including Jackson’s personal circumstances and role in the offense, and found no error in its analysis. The appellate court affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying Jackson’s motion for sentence reduction. View "Jackson v. United States" on Justia Law

After being involved in a head-on collision during a snowstorm, the appellant was detained by police on suspicion of driving while impaired. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood test, but not a urine test. The appellant refused to submit to both the blood test (for which there was a warrant) and a urine test (for which there was not). He was subsequently charged with first-degree test refusal. The appellant moved to suppress evidence of his refusals and to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statutes required refusal of both tests to sustain a conviction and that, because there was no warrant for a urine test, his prosecution violated the Fourth Amendment.The District Court denied the appellant’s motion, concluding that the relevant statutes did not require warrants for both blood and urine tests to prosecute for test refusal. The appellant waived his right to a jury trial, and the District Court found him guilty of first-degree test refusal based on stipulated facts. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutory language required only refusal of the test authorized by the warrant and that there was no requirement for law enforcement to obtain warrants for both types of tests.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that when a warrant authorizes only one type of chemical test—either blood or urine—a person’s refusal to submit to that specific test is sufficient for a conviction under Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2(2), and 171.177, subd. 2. The Court further held that a conviction for refusing a warranted chemical test does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, though on different grounds. View "State of Minnesota vs. Lueck" 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

Three men, including Andre Anthony, entered a Family Dollar Store in Hardin, Montana, and over about ten minutes, one of the men fraudulently completed three transactions at the computerized cash register by pressing the “cash received” button without providing payment. Surveillance video showed Anthony standing near the register, at times distracting the store attendant, while the fraudulent transactions occurred. The men left with three gift cards and a bottle of body wash, totaling $1,512.35. Law enforcement later detained the men and found receipts and merchandise matching the transactions in their vehicle. The store attendant misidentified Anthony as the man who pressed the register button, but Anthony was arrested and charged.Initially, Anthony was charged in Hardin City Court with shoplifting, but the charges were amended to unlawful use of a computer by accountability. After posting bail, Anthony returned to Michigan and requested to appear at hearings by video, which was sometimes permitted. At trial, Anthony appeared by video, but the court denied his request to testify by video after the prosecution rested. The City Court found Anthony guilty on all three counts. On appeal, the District Court for the Twenty-Second Judicial District affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible error in the denial of Anthony’s request to testify by video.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case de novo. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support Anthony’s convictions for unlawful use of a computer by accountability, as his actions and presence supported a finding that he aided or abetted the offenses. However, the Supreme Court found that the City Court abused its discretion by allowing Anthony to appear by video for trial but then denying his request to testify by video without clear explanation. The Supreme Court reversed Anthony’s convictions and remanded for a new trial on all counts. View "City of Hardin v. Anthony" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in which the defendant was accused of engaging in sexual intercourse without consent with the complainant, K.R., who had spent the afternoon and evening drinking at several bars. The two were acquaintances and exchanged messages on Facebook, with K.R. inviting the defendant to her home. K.R. later testified that she did not remember the events after leaving the bar, including her communications with the defendant, driving home, or leaving her door unlocked. She recalled regaining awareness during a sexual encounter at her home, at which point she told the man to stop. The defendant asserted that he did not know K.R. was unable to consent, pointing to her actions and communications as evidence that she appeared functional.The Second Judicial District Court of Montana presided over the trial. The court excluded evidence of K.R.’s past alcohol use and denied the defense’s request to present expert testimony on the effects of regular alcohol consumption. The court also instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he was aware of a “high probability” that K.R. was unable to consent, rather than requiring actual knowledge. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, with five years suspended.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the district court’s jury instruction on the mental state required for conviction and its exclusion of certain evidence constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by giving a result-based instruction for “knowingly,” which lowered the State’s burden of proof and violated the defendant’s due process rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding evidence of K.R.’s past drinking habits or the expert testimony as offered. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Law enforcement in Lewistown, Montana, investigated David Allen Pein for suspected marijuana distribution in 2016, using a confidential informant to conduct controlled purchases. A search of Pein’s residence yielded marijuana, paraphernalia, cash, and other evidence. Pein was charged with nine counts related to possession and distribution of marijuana. In 2017, Pein entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of felony Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute (Count VI), while six other charges were dismissed. Two additional counts—felony Criminal Distribution of Dangerous Drugs (Count IV) and felony Use or Possession of Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture (Count VIII)—were subject to a deferred prosecution agreement incorporated by reference into the plea agreement.The Tenth Judicial District Court deferred Pein’s sentence on Count VI. After Pein violated the terms of his deferred sentence and deferred prosecution agreement, the State reinstated prosecution on Counts IV and VIII. Pein was convicted by a jury on these counts in 2024 and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. Pein appealed, challenging the validity of incorporating a deferred prosecution agreement into a plea agreement, as well as the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Montana’s plea agreement statute (§ 46-12-211, MCA) does not authorize the incorporation of a deferred prosecution agreement under the pretrial diversion statute (§ 46-16-130, MCA) into a plea agreement. The Court vacated Pein’s convictions for Counts IV and VIII and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed Pein’s conviction on Count VI, rejecting his argument that marijuana is incorrectly classified as a Schedule I drug. The disposition was affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. View "State v. Pein" on Justia Law

The petitioner was indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree robbery and child neglect, in Kanawha County, West Virginia. After concerns about his competency arose during arraignment, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ordered psychological evaluations. The petitioner was found incompetent to stand trial but likely to regain competency within ninety days, leading to his commitment to a state hospital for competency restoration. While initially participating in treatment, the petitioner later refused both group sessions and prescribed medication, prompting the hospital to seek court approval for involuntary medication to restore competency.The Circuit Court of Kanawha County held an evidentiary hearing, considering expert testimony and the petitioner’s objections. The court found that involuntary medication was necessary and appropriate, relying on the four-part test from Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). The court granted the hospital’s request, authorizing involuntary administration of medication if the petitioner continued to refuse treatment. The petitioner then sought a writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, arguing that the state constitution provided greater protections than the federal standard and challenging the court’s authority to order involuntary medication.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the statutory framework and the constitutional arguments. It held that West Virginia law authorizes circuit courts to order involuntary medication for competency restoration and adopted the Sell test as the governing standard. The court further held that the State must prove the Sell factors by clear and convincing evidence. Although the circuit court applied a lower standard, the Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient under the higher standard and denied the writ of prohibition, affirming the lower court’s order permitting involuntary medication for competency restoration. View "State of West Virginia ex rel. Urban v. The Honorable David Hardy" on Justia Law

On June 4, 2022, a Parkersburg police officer arrested Michael Keith Allman pursuant to an outstanding warrant. At the time of arrest, Mr. Allman was carrying a backpack, which he set down before being handcuffed. After backup officers arrived and secured the scene, police searched the backpack and discovered drugs, digital scales, and ammunition. These items formed the basis for multiple charges against Mr. Allman, including felony possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver, possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and related offenses.Following indictment by a Wood County Grand Jury, Mr. Allman moved to suppress the evidence found in the backpack, arguing that the warrantless search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the West Virginia Constitution. The Circuit Court of Wood County held a suppression hearing, where the arresting officer testified about the circumstances of the arrest and search. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the search was lawful as incident to arrest and justified by concerns for officer safety and preservation of evidence. Mr. Allman was subsequently convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The high court held that, although the seizure of the backpack was lawful, the warrantless search was not justified as a search incident to arrest because Mr. Allman was handcuffed and the backpack was not within his immediate control at the time of the search. The court found no applicable exception to the warrant requirement and concluded that the search violated Mr. Allman’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The court vacated Mr. Allman’s drug-related convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of West Virginia v. Allman" on Justia Law

A violent home invasion occurred in Huntington, Cabell County, West Virginia, on November 22, 2020, when Nathan Dolen attacked Ronald and Orlinda Adkins, robbing them, inflicting serious injuries, and restraining them with handcuffs. Dolen stole firearms and other property, including a truck that he later burned. Both victims required hospitalization and rehabilitation. Dolen was indicted on thirteen felony counts, including kidnapping, robbery, assault, and arson. At trial, the State introduced cell site data and a PowerPoint mapping the locations of a phone associated with Dolen, which became a focus of the appeal. The jury convicted Dolen on all counts except one malicious assault charge.The Circuit Court of Cabell County presided over the trial. During trial, Dolen’s counsel objected to the admission of the PowerPoint, arguing it was not disclosed in discovery and that expert testimony about it violated Dolen’s confrontation rights because the testifying expert did not create the presentation. The court found that Dolen had received the underlying AT&T data and had time to review the PowerPoint before its admission, and allowed the expert to testify, finding no prejudice. Dolen also moved for acquittal on the kidnapping charges, arguing insufficient evidence and lack of intent for ransom, reward, or concession, but the court denied the motion. Dolen did not argue that the kidnapping was incidental to the robbery until appeal.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the PowerPoint and expert testimony, finding no discovery violation or Confrontation Clause breach, as the expert independently verified the data. The court also found sufficient evidence for the kidnapping convictions and declined to review the “incidental to robbery” argument, as it was not preserved below. The convictions and sentence were affirmed. View "State of West Virginia v. Dolen" on Justia Law