Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Brandon Horton was convicted of stalking and making criminal threats against Seiko H. He was acquitted of making criminal threats against Seiko’s father, John H. At sentencing, the trial court issued a 10-year protective order prohibiting Horton from contacting both Seiko and John, and an order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons. Horton appealed, challenging the inclusion of John in the protective order and the prohibition on possessing deadly or dangerous weapons.The Los Angeles County Superior Court found Horton guilty of making criminal threats against Seiko and stalking her, with the jury finding true several aggravating factors. Horton was acquitted of making criminal threats against John. The trial court sentenced Horton to five years and eight months in state prison, with credit for time served, and issued the protective orders in question.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not err in including John in the protective order, as there was sufficient evidence that Horton committed or attempted to commit harm against John. However, the court found that the trial court erred in extending the weapons prohibition beyond firearms to any deadly or dangerous weapon. The appellate court modified the judgment to strike the order prohibiting Horton from possessing any deadly or dangerous weapons, while affirming the judgment as modified. The trial court was directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections. View "P. v. Horton" on Justia Law

Grant Gambaiani was sentenced to 34 years in prison after being found guilty by an Illinois jury of multiple crimes, including the repeated sexual assault of his minor cousin, D.G. During the trial, the courtroom was partially closed during D.G.'s testimony, which Gambaiani argued violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his conviction, and the Supreme Court of Illinois denied review. Gambaiani then sought postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, but the state courts denied relief.Gambaiani filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, claiming violations of his constitutional rights to a public trial and effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied his petition. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's conclusion that Gambaiani waived his right to a public trial by failing to object to the partial closure was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court also found that the partial closure of the courtroom during D.G.'s testimony did not violate Gambaiani's Sixth Amendment right. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit upheld the state court's determination that Gambaiani's attorneys provided effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, as the state court's credibility determinations were reasonable and supported by the record. View "Gambaiani v Greene" on Justia Law

Defendant Xavier Zamora, then seventeen, shot and killed Jose Hernandez, a U.S. postal worker, during a domestic dispute with his mother. The United States charged Zamora as a juvenile under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA). The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico certified that there was a substantial federal interest in the case, allowing for federal jurisdiction. Zamora was transferred to adult status and pleaded guilty to Second Degree Murder of a U.S. Employee and Possessing a Firearm in Furtherance of Such Crime.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico accepted the certification and the transfer to adult status. Zamora pleaded guilty to the charges. On appeal, Zamora challenged the certification, arguing that no substantial federal interest existed and that the certification was facially deficient, thus the district court lacked federal subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the U.S. Attorney's certification of a substantial federal interest under the JDA is an unreviewable act of prosecutorial discretion. The court noted that the plain language of the JDA does not require the Attorney General to identify a specific substantial federal interest, only to certify that such an interest exists. The court joined the majority of other circuits in holding that the certification is not subject to judicial review. The court affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, finding the certification facially valid as it stated that there was a substantial federal interest in the charges. View "United States v. Zamora" on Justia Law

Steven Kellam was convicted in the Superior Court of Delaware for racketeering, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and other crimes, resulting in two life sentences plus 770 years in prison. Kellam sought postconviction relief under Superior Court Criminal Rule 61, arguing that his convictions were unjust. The Superior Court rejected all but one of his claims, agreeing that the felony-murder jury instruction misstated the law, leading to the vacatur of his felony-murder convictions and life sentences.Kellam appealed the Superior Court's rejection of two grounds for postconviction relief. He argued that the amendment of his indictment was so substantive that it resulted in his conviction for racketeering without proper indictment, undermining the court's jurisdiction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial lawyer's failure to request a jury instruction on accomplice liability.The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found that Kellam's challenge to the indictment amendment was procedurally barred because he did not object during the trial and failed to show cause and prejudice. The court also determined that the alleged defect in the indictment was curable and did not divest the Superior Court of jurisdiction.Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that Kellam's trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to request a Section 274 instruction, as it would not have benefited Kellam and could have undermined the defense's credibility.The State cross-appealed, arguing that the Superior Court erred in vacating Kellam's felony-murder convictions due to the flawed jury instruction. The Delaware Supreme Court agreed, distinguishing this case from Ray v. State, and found that the faulty instruction did not prejudice Kellam's defense. The court reversed the Superior Court's vacatur of Kellam's felony-murder convictions and remanded for reinstatement of those convictions and sentences. View "Kellam v. State" on Justia Law

David Samuel Crawford and A.L. ended their four-year relationship in 2018. Despite A.L.'s firm decision to end the relationship, Crawford persistently contacted, surveilled, and approached her for over four years. His actions included calling, emailing, texting, messaging on social media, contacting her friends and family, sending letters and gifts to her workplace, and showing up uninvited at her home. A.L. reported serious emotional distress due to Crawford's conduct, but law enforcement determined there was no imminent threat of harm as Crawford's actions did not include true threats.The Jefferson County District Court charged Crawford with two counts of stalking under section 18-3-602(1)(c), C.R.S. (2024). The prosecution sought to introduce evidence of Crawford's repeated contacts with A.L. Crawford challenged the charges, arguing they violated the First Amendment based on the precedent set in Counterman v. Colorado. The district court concluded that the prosecution needed to prove Crawford had recklessly disregarded that his repeated contacts would cause A.L. serious emotional distress.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that stalking charges based on repeated actions, including contacts but not their contents, do not require proof of a reckless state of mind. The court reversed the district court's order expanding Counterman's holding and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court clarified that Counterman's recklessness mens rea requirement applies only to true-threats cases based on the content of speech, not to cases involving repeated, unwelcome, and content-neutral conduct. View "People v. Crawford" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States, which under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) carries a maximum sentence that depends on the defendant’s criminal history. Without a prior felony, the maximum is two years; with a prior felony, it is ten years; and with an aggravated felony, it is twenty years. The defendant had two prior felony convictions, but neither was for an aggravated felony. However, the government and probation office mistakenly assumed one conviction was for an aggravated felony, suggesting a twenty-year maximum.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced the defendant, possibly under the mistaken belief that the statutory maximum was twenty years. The defendant did not object to this error at the time. On appeal, both parties agreed that the correct statutory maximum was ten years, not twenty. The defendant argued that this error should be presumed prejudicial, while the government contended that the defendant must show actual prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government, stating that the defendant must show prejudice from the error. The court noted that other circuits have similarly required defendants to demonstrate prejudice in such situations. The court found no evidence that the district court’s error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, as the 42-month sentence was well below the correct ten-year maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range. The court concluded that the defendant did not show that the error had a substantial impact on his sentence and affirmed the 42-month sentence. View "United States v. Calderon-Padilla" on Justia Law

Patrick Nkongolo was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault on a child, A.K., as a pattern of abuse. A.K. disclosed to a therapist that Nkongolo had sexually assaulted her over three years, starting when she was eleven. The therapist reported this to Arapahoe County Human Services, which then informed the police. As part of the investigation, the police asked A.K.'s father, D.K., to initiate a text conversation with Nkongolo. During the conversation, guided by a police officer, D.K. asked Nkongolo about the allegations. Nkongolo downplayed the incidents but eventually apologized for upsetting A.K. and admitted to giving her a "friendly kiss."The Arapahoe County District Court reviewed the case and held a pretrial hearing. The court found that the statements made by Nkongolo on November 2 and 7 were voluntary and admissible. However, it concluded that the statements made on November 15 were involuntary due to implied promises by D.K. to keep the matter within the family if Nkongolo confessed. The court ruled that these implied promises were coercive and overbore Nkongolo's will, rendering his statements involuntary and inadmissible.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's suppression of the November 15 statements. The Supreme Court concluded that D.K.'s conduct was not coercive and did not play a significant role in inducing Nkongolo's statements. The court held that Nkongolo's statements were voluntary and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Nkongolo" on Justia Law

Late one afternoon, Eugene Jennings was driving a tractor-trailer truck for his employer, All State Enterprise, Inc., in Custer County. As he negotiated a curve on Highway 69, his truck flipped over and crushed the vehicle in the oncoming lane driven by Timothy Trenshaw, killing him instantly. Jennings reported injuries and was transported to Parkview Hospital, where he discussed how he was injured with an emergency department physician. The physician documented these statements in Jennings's medical records.The district attorney's office for the Eleventh Judicial District charged Jennings with vehicular homicide and careless driving resulting in injury. Trenshaw's sister and son sued Jennings and All State in a wrongful death action. Plaintiffs obtained a police report containing a screenshot of Jennings's medical records, which included his description of the collision. Jennings filed a motion for a protective order, which the district court granted, prohibiting Plaintiffs from possessing or further disclosing Jennings's medical records. However, the district court later reviewed the screenshot in camera and ruled that five sentences describing the collision were not privileged, dissolving the protective order and requiring Jennings to disclose those sentences.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that medical records containing information provided by a patient to a physician during treatment are protected by the physician-patient privilege. The court concluded that the district court erred in reviewing the screenshot and conducting a sentence-by-sentence analysis. The Supreme Court made absolute the order to show cause, emphasizing that the proper method for Plaintiffs to learn about the facts of the collision is through discovery directed at Jennings, not by accessing his privileged medical records. View "Gardne v. Jennings" on Justia Law

Robert Kyle Dougherty was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Trevorius Thomas. Dougherty and his co-indictee, Stephen Lober, planned to rob Thomas by luring him to an abandoned house under the pretense of a drug deal. During the encounter, Thomas was shot and killed. Dougherty and Lober then attempted to cover up the crime. Dougherty was found guilty of all charges except malice murder, and the trial court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole, along with additional consecutive and concurrent prison terms for other charges.Dougherty's first appeal was dismissed because his pro se motion for a new trial was a legal nullity, and his appellate counsel's motion was untimely. His subsequent appeals were also dismissed due to unresolved issues with Count 4 and procedural errors. After the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi for Count 4, Dougherty's third appeal was dismissed based on the law of the case doctrine. On remand, Dougherty filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which was granted, and he was resentenced to the same total time. His motion for a new trial was denied, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Dougherty's convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain text messages and in imposing Dougherty's sentence. The court rejected Dougherty's arguments regarding sentencing disparity and improper considerations during sentencing, concluding that the trial court's comments were reasonable inferences based on the evidence presented at trial. View "DOUGHERTY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Benjamin Clarence McIver was convicted of malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of Brandon Smith. The crimes occurred on April 16, 2020. McIver, along with Antavius Wilcox and James Parker, was reindicted on March 25, 2021. McIver and Wilcox faced multiple charges, including malice murder and armed robbery. McIver was tried separately and found guilty on all counts on June 30, 2022. He was sentenced to three consecutive life terms without parole for malice murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, plus a consecutive five-year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.McIver filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court on August 12, 2024. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. McIver argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, the trial court erred in not suppressing part of his custodial statement, and the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that McIver's trial counsel was not ineffective. The court determined that counsel's strategic decisions, including not presenting expert testimony on DNA evidence and not filing a pre-trial motion challenging the DNA testing, were reasonable. The court also found no plain error in the trial court's handling of McIver's custodial statement.However, the court agreed with McIver that the evidence was insufficient to support his armed robbery conviction. The court reversed the armed robbery conviction and remanded the case for resentencing, as the reversal affected the merger of the aggravated assault count and the consecutive nature of the kidnapping and firearm possession sentences. The court affirmed McIver's remaining convictions. View "MCIVER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law