Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Federal agents in Florida posted fake online advertisements for underage girls on a website known for sex trafficking. Ralph Tovar responded to one of these ads, persistently contacting the number provided and expressing interest in meeting two girls, aged thirteen and fifteen, for sex. He negotiated the terms, including additional illegal acts for extra payment, and arranged to meet at a hotel, where he paid $550 to an undercover agent for a room key. Tovar was arrested immediately after the transaction. He was indicted on two counts of attempted sex trafficking of a minor and one count of attempted coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. At trial, Tovar claimed he intended to “save” the girls, not exploit them, but the jury found him guilty on all counts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Tovar’s motions for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence that he knowingly attempted to engage in sex trafficking of minors. The court also rejected his arguments regarding the sufficiency of the government’s proof on the interstate-commerce element, the propriety of the jury instructions, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed Tovar’s new arguments. The court held that the interstate-commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) is not jurisdictional but a substantive element, and thus reviewed for plain error. The court found no error, holding that Tovar’s use of the internet and a cell phone to arrange the transaction satisfied the “in or affecting interstate commerce” requirement. The court also found the jury instructions proper and no prosecutorial misconduct. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Tovar’s conviction. View "United States v. Tovar" on Justia Law

Raul Guzman was living in a camper trailer parked on property in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the City had declared two buildings substandard and posted notices prohibiting anyone from residing in the structures or on the property. Despite these warnings, Guzman stayed in the trailer with the property owner’s permission. In September 2022, city code enforcement officers, accompanied by police, inspected the property. Upon finding Guzman in the trailer, officers entered, detained him, and discovered a firearm inside.A grand jury indicted Guzman for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer because he had the owner’s permission to stay there and the posted notices did not specifically mention the trailer. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. The court found that, although Guzman may have had a subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not objectively reasonable because the posted notices made clear that residing on the property was unlawful. The court also found, in the alternative, that exceptions to the warrant requirement would have justified the officers’ actions. Guzman subsequently pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that Guzman lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer. The court reasoned that, given the explicit posted notices prohibiting residence on the property and Guzman’s admission that he read them, society would not recognize his expectation of privacy as reasonable. The court therefore affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

During a protest in Minneapolis following the murder of George Floyd, Montez Lee, Jr. set fire to a pawn shop that had already been looted. Law enforcement later discovered the body of a man, O.L.S., in the remains of the building. Lee was charged with arson of property used in interstate commerce and pleaded guilty. At sentencing, the parties initially prepared to contest whether Lee’s actions caused O.L.S.’s death, which would have resulted in a significant sentencing enhancement. However, Lee’s attorney ultimately stipulated to the enhancement, and Lee was sentenced to 120 months in prison. The district court deferred a determination of restitution, as no victim had yet requested it, and entered an initial judgment reflecting this deferral.Subsequently, the parties agreed that Lee would pay $842 in restitution, and the district court amended the judgment several months later to include this obligation. Lee did not appeal either the initial or amended judgment. Over a year after the amended judgment, Lee filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the motion as untimely, holding that the one-year limitations period began with the initial judgment, not the amended judgment that added restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, for purposes of § 2255(f)(1), a judgment of conviction does not become final until all components of the sentence, including restitution, are determined and the time for direct appeal has expired. Therefore, the limitations period for Lee’s § 2255 motion began after the amended judgment was entered. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case, concluding that Lee’s motion was timely. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty in 2018 to conspiracy to distribute heroin, the defendant served a 48-month sentence and began supervised release in 2023. During his initial term of supervision, he was charged with sex trafficking offenses, which he argued violated a “No Further Prosecution” clause in his plea agreement. Although the district court initially denied his motion to dismiss those charges, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit later held that the plea agreement barred the new charges, vacated his sex trafficking convictions, and ordered his release. Upon release, the district court imposed modified and additional special conditions of supervised release, citing evidence of prior sex trafficking and violent conduct.Following his release, the defendant repeatedly violated the terms of his supervised release. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa revoked his supervision twice, each time imposing new terms of incarceration and supervised release, and reimposing or adding special conditions, including GPS monitoring, a curfew, and restrictions on contact with minors. The defendant did not appeal the first revocation judgment, but after the second revocation and reimposition of conditions, he objected to certain conditions and appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s imposition of the challenged conditions for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing GPS monitoring and curfew, given the defendant’s extensive violations and history of evading supervision. The court also upheld the restriction on unapproved contact with minors, finding it reasonably tailored in light of evidence of past conduct and allowing for contact with prior approval. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

On July 2, 2022, Antonio Mashawn Airhart and his girlfriend discovered her borrowed car had been vandalized. Suspecting a neighbor’s involvement, a confrontation ensued later that day between Airhart and the neighbor’s brother, Martin Diaz, outside the neighbor’s apartment. During the altercation, Airhart was seen with a firearm, and Diaz testified that Airhart shot him in the face. Diaz returned fire with his own weapon. Law enforcement recovered shell casings from two types of ammunition at the scene and found an empty ammunition box and loose rounds in the apartment where Airhart was staying, with a fingerprint matching Airhart on the box.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied Airhart’s motion to exclude evidence of the empty ammunition box and loose rounds, and a jury convicted him of unlawful possession of ammunition after a prior felony and misdemeanor crime of violence. The district court sentenced Airhart to 180 months in custody and three years of supervised release.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Airhart challenged the admission of the ammunition evidence and certain lay opinion testimony by a detective, and argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Eighth Circuit found that the district court erred in admitting the ammunition evidence, as it was neither intrinsic to the charged offense nor properly admitted under Rule 404(b), and that the detective’s lay opinion testimony was inadmissible. However, the court held both errors were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony and corroborating video and physical evidence. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Airhart" on Justia Law

Marcus Rexrode, a convicted felon, arranged to sell marijuana to a sixteen-year-old, J.M. During the transaction, J.M. attempted to rob Rexrode at gunpoint, and J.M.’s companion also produced a firearm and fired at Rexrode. Rexrode fled while shooting back, fatally wounding J.M. Rexrode subsequently entered a plea agreement with the government, pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In exchange, the government agreed to dismiss a murder charge. The plea agreement included a joint recommendation for a 180-month sentence, acknowledged the possibility of guideline departures, and reserved both parties’ rights to object to any departures.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report, which calculated a guidelines range of 41 to 51 months but identified grounds for upward departures due to the offense resulting in death and uncharged conduct. At sentencing, the court applied these departures, raising the guidelines range to 97 to 121 months, and imposed a 120-month sentence—substantially below the joint recommendation. Rexrode appealed, arguing procedural error in applying the departures and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that there was no procedural error, as Rexrode had agreed to the possibility of departures and did not object to the Presentence Investigation Report or the departures at sentencing. The court also found that any error would have been harmless, as the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless. Additionally, the court determined that Rexrode had waived his right to appeal the sentence, as it fell within the adjusted guidelines range. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Rexrode" on Justia Law

In 1994, the defendant was convicted of over 60 offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder, stemming from a series of burglaries in 1993 during which two residents were killed. After being shot by a resident during a burglary, the defendant fled, leaving behind gloves and a tire iron—later linked to the murders—and was subsequently arrested. Police recovered additional items, including blood-stained shoes and jeans, some of which the defendant admitted were his, though he claimed the blood was his own. The defendant denied ownership of the gloves and tire iron, but testimony connected him to those items. No DNA testing was performed on these items at the time of trial.Years after his conviction, the defendant filed a motion under K.S.A. 21-2512 seeking postconviction DNA testing of several pieces of evidence, arguing that modern testing could yield exculpatory results. The Geary District Court appointed counsel and ordered the evidence, which had been poorly stored for decades, to be evaluated by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI). The KBI determined that the condition of the evidence—due to improper storage, possible contamination, and degradation—meant that any DNA testing would likely be inconclusive. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding there was no reasonable scientific certainty that testing would yield accurate or exculpatory results.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the district court’s decision, applying a bifurcated standard of review: factual findings were reviewed for substantial competent evidence, and legal conclusions were reviewed de novo. The court held that K.S.A. 21-2512(c) does not require DNA testing based solely on an allegation that it could produce exculpatory evidence; courts must assess whether testing could actually yield such evidence. Because the evidence was too degraded to produce meaningful results, the denial of DNA testing was affirmed. View "State v. Holt " on Justia Law

A former Massachusetts State Police trooper retired in March 2018 after a 21-year career. While assigned to overtime patrol programs funded by federal grants, he falsely reported working over 700 overtime hours in 2015 and 2016, receiving more than $50,000 in unearned pay. He attempted to conceal his conduct by submitting falsified motor vehicle citations. In July 2018, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds, was sentenced to three months in prison, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution.Following his conviction, the State Board of Retirement suspended his pension and held a hearing. The hearing officer recommended, and the board adopted, a finding that under G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), the plaintiff and his beneficiaries were not entitled to any retirement benefits due to his conviction for an offense involving violation of laws applicable to his office. The board ordered the return of his accumulated contributions, less certain deductions. The plaintiff sought judicial review in the Massachusetts District Court, raising constitutional challenges under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, arguing the forfeiture was an excessive fine and cruel or unusual punishment. The District Court judge entered judgment for the retirement board.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the pension forfeiture constituted a fine under Article 26 but was not excessive, adopting the United States Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that, even assuming Article 26’s cruel or unusual punishment provision applied to fines, the forfeiture was not cruel or unusual. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment and the retirement board’s decision. View "Raftery v. State Board of Retirement" on Justia Law

The case involved the fatal stabbing of a woman in her apartment in Middletown, Connecticut, by her former boyfriend after she ended their relationship. The defendant persistently contacted the victim despite her clear rejections and police warnings. On the night of the murder, the victim was inundated with calls and texts from the defendant, who later left flowers and a note at her door. After the attack, the defendant remained at the scene, called acquaintances, and eventually contacted 911. Physical evidence, including the victim’s blood on the defendant’s clothing and his DNA under her fingernails, linked him to the crime. The defendant gave conflicting accounts to police and left handwritten notes at the scene.The Superior Court for the judicial district of Middlesex denied in part the defendant’s motion to introduce third-party culpability evidence regarding the victim’s neighbor, Adduci, excluding certain videos, messages, prior misconduct, and evidence of Adduci’s mental health decline. The court also denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after the prosecutor questioned a detective about whether defense counsel could have requested forensic testing of evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder but not guilty of home invasion, and the court imposed a fifty-seven-year sentence.On direct appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the proffered third-party culpability evidence. However, it held that any error was evidentiary, not constitutional, because the excluded evidence was not central to the defense and the defendant was able to present substantial evidence supporting his theory. The Court further found that the exclusion did not substantially affect the verdict given the strength of the state’s case. The Court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, as the prosecutor’s questions did not improperly shift the burden of proof and curative instructions were sufficient. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Myers" on Justia Law

A 34-year-old man engaged in a months-long sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, whom he met online. The relationship involved sexual encounters, the exchange of nude photographs, and the provision of marijuana and alcohol to the minor. The man used online messaging applications to communicate and arrange meetings. The investigation began after the girl reported the relationship to police, but she could not provide identifying information about the man beyond his online aliases. State detectives, working as part of a federal task force, requested that federal officers use federal administrative subpoenas to obtain electronic records from service providers, which ultimately identified the suspect.The Second District Court in Davis County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the electronic records, finding that the evidence was lawfully obtained through federal subpoenas. The court also admitted evidence from the defendant’s Summit County residence, including items corroborating the girl’s account. At trial, the jury convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including human trafficking of a child, sexual exploitation of a minor, and distribution of a controlled substance. The court partially granted a post-trial motion to arrest judgment but left the most serious convictions intact. The defendant appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that Utah’s Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act (EIDPA) does not require suppression of evidence lawfully obtained by federal officers and shared with state officers, and that the Utah Constitution was not violated by the use of such evidence. The court vacated the conviction for human trafficking of a child, holding that the statute requires proof that something of value was actually given or received in exchange for a sexual act, not merely offered. The court affirmed the convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and distribution of a controlled substance, and found that any error in admitting certain evidence was harmless. View "State v. Andrus" on Justia Law