Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

James Dunbar was serving a suspended sentence for criminal mischief and was on probation for being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. A protection order prohibited him from contacting the victim in any form. Despite this, Dunbar posted messages on his public Facebook page that referred to the victim and her deceased husband using aliases similar to their names. Some posts included threats and were intended to notify the victim. Facebook users saw these posts and informed the victim, who then viewed them.Dunbar was arrested and charged with violating the protection order and stalking. He was found not guilty on all charges. However, his probation officer alleged that these actions violated the terms of his probation, and the State moved to impose his suspended sentence. The Superior Court found that Dunbar's Facebook posts violated the protection order, thus violating his probation and suspended sentence terms. The court imposed a portion of his suspended sentence and sentenced him to twelve months in the house of corrections, all suspended, for the probation violation. Dunbar's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court held that Dunbar's Facebook posts constituted indirect contact with the victim, violating the protection order. The court also determined that the posts were true threats and not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision that Dunbar violated the terms of his probation and suspended sentence, and upheld the imposed punishments. View "State v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

A man was charged with six counts of statutory rape involving his eleven-year-old daughter, who lived with him after her mother was incarcerated. The daughter testified that her father raped her on multiple occasions, providing detailed accounts of the assaults. Evidence included her birth certificate, which established both her and her father’s ages, and testimony from family members and investigators. The defendant denied the allegations, suggesting the accusations were fabricated due to disciplinary issues.The Circuit Court of Yazoo County conducted a jury trial, during which the defendant’s counsel submitted jury instructions that omitted the statutory requirement that the defendant be at least twenty-four months older than the victim. The State agreed to use the defense’s instructions. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and he was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the omission of the age-gap element from the jury instructions constituted reversible error.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that, under the invited-error doctrine, a defendant cannot complain on appeal about an error in jury instructions that he himself requested and received. The Court found that the defendant was estopped from challenging the omission of the age-gap element, as he had submitted the instructions and the State and trial court had accepted them. The Court also rejected the defendant’s other claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficiency of the evidence regarding venue, improper admission of hearsay, and a Batson challenge. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of Yazoo County. View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of threatening a police officer via social media while on mandatory supervision. As a condition of his postrelease community supervision, the trial court prohibited him from creating or using social media accounts and from accessing social media websites. The defendant challenged this condition as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.The Superior Court of Sacramento County initially sentenced the defendant to a split sentence for various offenses, including carrying a concealed weapon and perjury. While on mandatory supervision, the defendant was convicted of making a criminal threat using his Facebook account. The trial court executed the previously imposed sentence and added a consecutive sentence for the new conviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. The trial court then imposed a revised sentence, and the defendant was released on postrelease supervision with the challenged social media condition.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the social media prohibition was not unconstitutionally vague, as it clearly defined the prohibited conduct. The court also found that the condition was not overbroad, as it was closely related to the defendant's use of social media to commit the crime. The court concluded that the prohibition was a reasonable measure to protect the state's interest in the defendant's reformation and rehabilitation. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. View "People v. Nixon" on Justia Law

The case involves Waiser Walter, who stabbed his adoptive sister, Imaculata Roke, and her four-year-old son, J.R. Roke survived, but J.R. died from his injuries. Walter was charged with attempted murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and attempted murder in the second degree. He pleaded guilty to the latter two charges under a plea agreement and was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.The Circuit Court of the First Circuit convicted Walter based on his guilty plea. Walter later sought to withdraw his plea, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, the circuit court's failure to engage in a colloquy regarding his request for new counsel, and an appearance of impropriety due to the relationship between the circuit court and one of the State’s witnesses. The circuit court denied his motion to withdraw the plea and his motion to disqualify the judge.The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walter’s motions. The ICA applied the multi-factor framework from State v. Pedro and concluded that most factors weighed against allowing Walter to withdraw his plea. The ICA also found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's denial of the motion to disqualify the judge.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case and held that "fair and just reasons" warranted the withdrawal of Walter’s guilty plea, particularly due to his consistent assertion of lack of penal responsibility and the lack of a meaningful colloquy regarding his request for new counsel. The court vacated the ICA’s judgment, the circuit court’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court did not find an abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s denial of the motion to disqualify the judge. View "State v. Walter" on Justia Law

Tracey Shaw was indicted in January 2023 for knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Shaw pleaded guilty and, as part of his plea agreement, waived his right to appeal any sentence within the applicable guideline range. At the sentencing hearing, the district court determined Shaw’s guideline range to be 87 to 108 months and sentenced him to 92 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The court did not make a recommendation about substance-abuse treatment during incarceration but left it to the Bureau of Prisons. For supervised release, the court stated that Shaw might be required to participate in substance-abuse treatment if directed by the probation office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee issued a written judgment stating that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer. Shaw appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement, which he interpreted as delegating the decision to the probation office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Shaw’s appeal was not barred by his plea agreement’s appeal waiver because he was challenging the written judgment, not the sentence itself. The court found that the oral sentence was ambiguous regarding the substance-abuse treatment condition. The written judgment clarified this ambiguity by specifying that Shaw must participate in substance-abuse treatment as directed by the probation officer. The court concluded that this language met constitutional requirements by mandating treatment while allowing the probation officer to handle the details. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s written judgment. View "United States v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Stephen Purks orchestrated a multi-state methamphetamine distribution conspiracy from his Florida state prison cell. The government indicted him on fourteen counts of methamphetamine distribution and one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. A jury found him guilty on all counts. Purks appealed his convictions, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement and arguing improper venue for his prosecution.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held an evidentiary hearing on Purks's motion to suppress. Purks claimed that his statements were involuntary due to a beating by Florida Department of Corrections officers before his interview with DEA agents. The court found that Purks was read his Miranda rights and voluntarily waived them, crediting the DEA agent's testimony over Purks's. The court also found that the interview was conducted respectfully and without coercion, and denied the motion to suppress. At trial, the district court denied Purks's Rule 29 motion for acquittal based on improper venue, instructing the jury that venue was proper in the Western District of Virginia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, holding that Purks's statements were voluntary and that the agents did not coerce him. The court also affirmed the district court's venue instruction, holding that the distribution of methamphetamine is a continuing offense that can be prosecuted in any district where the offense was begun, continued, or completed. The court found that the distribution was completed in the Western District of Virginia, making it a proper venue for prosecution. View "United States v. Purks" on Justia Law

The Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico claimed that the manufacturers failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, resulting in harm from the weapons' misuse. The complaint included allegations that the manufacturers knowingly supplied firearms to retail dealers who sold them illegally to Mexican traffickers, failed to impose controls on their distribution networks, and made design and marketing decisions to stimulate demand among cartel members.The U.S. District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision. The First Circuit found that Mexico had plausibly alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal firearms sales, thus satisfying the predicate exception under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Mexico's complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers. The Court concluded that the allegations did not meet the requirements for aiding and abetting liability, as they did not show that the manufacturers took affirmative acts to facilitate the illegal sales or intended to promote the criminal activities. Consequently, PLCAA barred the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos" on Justia Law

Quintan Cockerell, a marketer for two compounding pharmacies, was convicted for receiving illegal kickbacks as part of a conspiracy to induce physicians to prescribe highly lucrative prescriptions. These pharmacies, including Xpress Compounding, focused on formulating expensive topical creams, resulting in significant reimbursements from federal insurers like TRICARE. Cockerell was involved in recruiting physicians, developing new formulas, and receiving commissions disguised as payments to his then-wife. He also provided financial incentives to physicians, including lavish vacations and investment opportunities, to encourage them to prescribe these creams.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas convicted Cockerell of violating the Anti-Kickback Statute, conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to 29 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $59,879,871 in restitution. Cockerell appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, alleged misstatements of law by the Government during trial, and the restitution order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that a reasonable jury could have convicted Cockerell based on the evidence presented. The court held that the Government provided sufficient evidence of Cockerell's involvement in the illegal kickback scheme and his intent to influence physicians. The court also found no reversible error in the Government's statements during closing arguments and upheld the restitution order, noting that Cockerell failed to provide evidence of legitimate services to offset the loss amount. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cockerell" on Justia Law

Raymond Brown pleaded guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to probation. The State of Nevada filed a motion to correct the sentence, arguing that Brown's prior burglary convictions made him ineligible for probation under NRS 205.060(3). The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The State then petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, challenging the district court's order.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied the State's motion to correct Brown's sentence. The State argued that the district court abused its discretion and acted beyond its jurisdiction by placing Brown on probation. The State also contended that it could not appeal the order denying its motion, thus justifying the need for writ relief.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that the State had an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the order denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court concluded that the State had the right to appeal the district court's order, as motions to correct an illegal sentence are considered postconviction challenges to a judgment of conviction. The court analogized such motions to motions for a new trial, which are appealable by either party under NRS 177.015(1)(b). Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the State's petition for writ relief, as the State had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal. View "State v. District Court (Brown)" on Justia Law

In January 2017, Deaunta Tyler, along with Ledell Tyler and Dalvent Jackson, forcibly entered a home in Rock Island, Illinois, armed with firearms, searching for cocaine. They found a family instead and, brandishing weapons, demanded the non-existent drugs. The intruders moved the family around the house at gunpoint, passing firearms among themselves and threatening to kill the victims. Jackson fired a handgun inside the house. The intruders eventually left with cash and a small amount of marijuana. The next day, police identified the men, leading to a high-speed chase and Tyler's eventual arrest.A grand jury indicted Tyler on three counts: attempted Hobbs Act robbery, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Tyler was convicted on all counts. The district court sentenced him to 330 months in prison. Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Tyler moved to vacate his § 924(c) conviction. The district court granted the motion, vacated the § 924(c) conviction, and resentenced Tyler to 240 months.Tyler appealed his revised sentence, arguing that the district court failed to address his key arguments in mitigation and provided an inadequate explanation for the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Tyler waived any procedural objection regarding the court’s failure to consider his arguments in mitigation by confirming that the court had addressed his principal points. Additionally, the appellate court found that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing a revised sentence within the guideline range. View "United States v Tyler" on Justia Law