Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Terrence Darnell Lee was convicted of felony murder and other crimes related to five incidents in the summer of 2018, including the shooting death of Kemar Hawkins on August 2, 2018. The incidents occurred on July 21, July 25, July 28, July 29, and August 2, 2018. Lee was indicted on multiple counts, including felony murder, home invasion, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was re-indicted on the same counts in February 2020. His first trial in March 2020 ended in a mistrial due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In his second trial in April 2022, the jury found him guilty on all counts.The trial court sentenced Lee to life in prison for felony murder and additional consecutive sentences for other convictions, totaling nine life sentences plus 175 years. Lee's motion for a new trial was denied, and he filed a timely notice of appeal. The Supreme Court of Georgia remanded the case to supplement the record, and the trial court granted the motion. Lee then filed a renewed notice of appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Lee's convictions. The court found that any error in admitting evidence of a prior incident in Florida was harmless. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lee's motion to sever the counts related to the murder, as the offenses were part of a crime spree. The evidence was sufficient to support Lee's convictions, including those related to the July 25 incident, where the jury could reasonably conclude that the perpetrator had a gun. The trial court was not required to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, as no evidence supported that Lee committed only the lesser offenses. Any error in allowing a detective to identify Lee in surveillance footage was deemed harmless. The cumulative effect of any errors did not deprive Lee of a fair trial. View "LEE v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Timothy Coleman, Jr., and Tyriek D. Walker were convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to testify in the trial of Arthur Newton, a fellow gang member accused of ordering the murder of Dominique Powell. Coleman and Walker had previously pleaded guilty to charges related to Powell's death, with Coleman admitting to malice murder and Walker to conspiracy to commit murder. Despite their guilty pleas, both refused to testify at Newton's trial, citing their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination due to potential federal prosecution.In the Chatham County Superior Court, Coleman and Walker were each found guilty of multiple counts of contempt for refusing to answer questions during Newton's trial. Coleman was convicted of 19 counts and sentenced to 380 days in prison, while Walker was convicted of 21 counts and sentenced to 420 days. They appealed these convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in compelling their testimony and that their multiple contempt convictions should merge into a single count.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in requiring Coleman to answer questions about his unsworn proffer, as these could further incriminate him. Consequently, Coleman's contempt convictions related to these questions were reversed. However, the court upheld the trial court's decision to compel answers to questions about the crimes to which they had pleaded guilty and their plea hearings, as these did not place them in additional jeopardy.The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated the remaining contempt convictions and sentences for both Coleman and Walker, ruling that their multiple refusals to testify constituted a single incident of contempt. The case was remanded for the trial court to convict and sentence each appellant for only one count of contempt. View "COLEMAN v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of malice murder and related offenses following the death of her four-year-old daughter, who suffered extensive and fatal injuries from prolonged physical abuse. The child lived with her mother, two younger siblings, and the mother’s girlfriend. On the day of the child’s death, neighbors responded to cries for help and found the child unresponsive, with visible injuries. Medical testimony established that the child had been subjected to severe, repeated blunt-force trauma over a period of hours, resulting in a painful death. The mother’s statements to a fellow jail inmate implicated her in restraining the child while her girlfriend beat the child with a wooden object. The girlfriend, who had pleaded guilty to the murder, testified for the defense but minimized her own involvement.After a jury trial in the Superior Court of Clayton County, the mother was found guilty of malice murder and other charges, but acquitted of tampering with evidence and aggravated sexual battery. She was sentenced to life without parole plus consecutive terms for lesser offenses. Her motion for a new trial was denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia first addressed whether it should retain jurisdiction over non-death-penalty murder appeals, ultimately deciding to continue exercising jurisdiction over such cases. The court then reviewed the merits of the appeal, rejecting the mother’s arguments that the evidence was insufficient, that her trial counsel was ineffective, that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on confession corroboration, and that the State failed to correct allegedly false testimony. The court found the evidence sufficient, determined that counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient, and concluded that any alleged errors did not affect the outcome. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "HART v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Ryan Bowdery, Rashad Barber, and David Wallace were convicted of murder, aggravated assault, and related crimes in connection with the shooting death of Darius Bottoms and the nonfatal shooting of Jared Robinson. The crimes occurred on June 13, 2014, and a Fulton County grand jury indicted the three men in February 2015. They were tried together in December 2017, and Bowdery was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for malice murder, along with additional consecutive terms for other charges. Bowdery filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, leading to this appeal.The trial court denied Bowdery's motion for a new trial, and he appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Bowdery argued that the evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice was insufficient under OCGA § 24-14-8, that the trial court erred in giving an incomplete instruction on accomplice corroboration, and that the trial court abused its discretion by not taking remedial measures after an objection to the State’s closing argument.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including cell phone records and gang-related evidence, provided sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony. The court also determined that the trial court did not plainly err in its jury instructions regarding accomplice corroboration, as there was no dispute that the witness was an accomplice. Additionally, the court held that the prosecutor's closing argument did not constitute an impermissible argument about future dangerousness and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in handling the objection. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bowdery's convictions. View "BOWDERY v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Tony Arnsdorff and Scott Pinholster were jointly indicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the death of Courtney Wells. Wells had a romantic relationship with Pinholster and stayed with Arnsdorff after an argument with Pinholster. When Arnsdorff attempted to return Wells to Pinholster, she refused and left. Pinholster, with Arnsdorff's assistance, later found Wells, and after a confrontation, Pinholster shot Wells multiple times. Arnsdorff helped move Wells's body and initially lied to the police about his knowledge of the crime.Arnsdorff was tried separately and found guilty of all counts, including malice murder, aggravated assault, and tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to life without parole for malice murder, with additional consecutive sentences for other charges. Arnsdorff filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. He then moved to set aside the order due to a delay in notification, which was granted, but his subsequent appeal was dismissed as untimely. After further proceedings, the trial court vacated the previous orders and again denied the motion for a new trial. Arnsdorff filed a timely 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 Arnsdorff's convictions for malice murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The court also found no plain error in the jury instructions regarding flight and the cautionary instruction on Arnsdorff's out-of-court statements. Additionally, the court upheld the felony sentence for tampering with evidence, as it involved the prosecution of another person for a serious violent felony. View "ARNSDORFF v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

Sonya Fuller was convicted of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault related to the fatal shooting of Anthony Reid. The incident occurred on August 31, 2020, at a hotel in Spalding County, where Fuller, her son Joshua, and other family members were staying. The hotel manager witnessed suspicious activity and heard gunshots from Fuller’s room. Law enforcement found Reid’s body blocking the door, and Fuller and another woman were found hysterical inside. Surveillance footage showed Joshua moving around the hotel before and after the shooting, and evidence linked him to the crime scene. Fuller initially told investigators that an unknown assailant committed the robbery and shooting, which was later proven false.A Spalding County grand jury indicted Fuller and others for various crimes, including felony murder and aggravated assault. Fuller was found guilty of felony murder predicated on aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, and hindering the apprehension of a criminal. She was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the felony murder charge and an additional five years for hindering apprehension. Fuller’s motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, and her appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of Georgia.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and affirmed Fuller’s conviction. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Fuller guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as a party to the crimes. The court also upheld the trial court’s denial of Fuller’s motion for a directed verdict, applying the same standard of review for constitutional sufficiency of the evidence. The court concluded that Fuller’s actions and the circumstances supported the inference that she shared a common criminal intent with Joshua to commit the crimes. View "FULLER v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tangtang Zhao, a pharmacist at Walgreens, took blank COVID-19 vaccination cards from his workplace and sold them on eBay for personal profit. Zhao was charged with and convicted on twelve counts of theft of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641. He appealed, arguing that the government did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the vaccination cards were government property when he took them. He also challenged the trial judge’s response to the jury’s question about the definition of government property and parts of the jury instructions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Zhao’s motion for judgment of acquittal, and the jury found him guilty on all counts. Zhao was sentenced to one year of probation and fined $5,600. He renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was again denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court held that the government presented sufficient evidence that it maintained supervision and control over the vaccination cards, which retained their federal character. The court found that the government’s restrictions on the use and distribution of the cards, its right to inspect and access the cards, and its ability to terminate Walgreens’ participation in the vaccination program were sufficient to prove that the cards were government property.The appellate court also held that the district court did not err in its response to the jury’s question or in its jury instructions. The court concluded that the instructions were correct statements of the law and that the district court acted within its discretion. The appellate court affirmed Zhao’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v Zhao" on Justia Law

In 1985, the petitioner was sentenced by the Los Angeles County Superior Court (LASC) to 15 years to life plus seven years for murder. While serving this sentence, he was found with methamphetamine in 1997 and subsequently sentenced by the Kern County Superior Court (KSC) in 1998 to an additional eight years, to be served consecutively. In July 2024, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) notified both courts that the petitioner qualified for compassionate release under Penal Code section 1172.2. The KSC denied the petition, while the LASC granted it and ordered the CDCR to release the petitioner. However, the CDCR refused to release him, citing the unserved eight-year sentence from the KSC.The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court, which ordered the CDCR to show cause why the writ should not be granted, questioning the compatibility of sections 1172.2 and 1170.1(c). The case was transferred to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District. The appellate court reviewed the case and concluded that section 1172.2, which mandates a single court to resolve compassionate release petitions, is reconcilable with section 1170.1(c), which governs consecutive sentences for in-prison offenses.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, held that section 1172.2 requires a single court to handle compassionate release petitions and that the KSC, as the last court to impose a sentence, was the appropriate court to rule on the petition. The court found that the statutes were not irreconcilable and denied the petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus. The order to show cause was discharged, and the petitioner’s request for release was denied. View "In re Brissette" on Justia Law

Jesus Zambrano was convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois state court in 2013. The Illinois Appellate Court later found that the trial court erred by not giving a jury instruction on accomplice liability, leading to a retrial where Zambrano was acquitted. Zambrano then filed a federal lawsuit against Detective Patrick Schumacher and sought indemnification from the City of Joliet, alleging that Schumacher fabricated evidence, violating his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.The case involved the murder of Robert Gooch, who was shot at his girlfriend's apartment in May 2009. Key evidence included testimonies and surveillance videos placing Zambrano at the scene. Detective Schumacher's police report stated that Zambrano identified his friends and the location of his girlfriend's apartment, which Zambrano claimed was false.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Zambrano failed to provide sufficient evidence that Schumacher deliberately falsified evidence in bad faith or that the alleged fabrication was material to his conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Zambrano did not present enough evidence to show that Schumacher knowingly falsified the police report or acted in bad faith. Additionally, the court found that the alleged fabricated evidence was not material to the outcome of the trial, as it did not affect the jury's judgment. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was upheld. View "Zambrano v City of Joliet" on Justia Law

Edwin Tavarez acted as a courier for his brother's illegal cocaine business, delivering cocaine to a restaurant in Lakewood, Ohio. After his brother's death, Tavarez continued the operation until he was arrested in February 2019. Authorities found him in possession of two kilograms of cocaine. In July 2019, Tavarez was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and use of a communications facility in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He pled guilty to the first two charges, and the third was dismissed. Tavarez was sentenced to 18 months in prison and four years of supervised release, including one year of home detention.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Tavarez's motions for compassionate release in September 2021, reducing his sentence to time served and extending his home detention. In June 2022, the court terminated the special condition of home detention. In June 2023, Tavarez filed a pro se motion for early termination of supervised release, citing good behavior and mishandling of his earned time credit. The district court denied the motion in a summary order and also denied his subsequent motion for access to the underlying documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) does not impede their review of the district court's denial of Tavarez's early termination motion. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by not demonstrating that it considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors when denying the motion. The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying early termination of supervised release and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Tavarez's motion for access to documents, as there was no obligation to disclose the supervision report or its content. View "United States v. Tavarez" on Justia Law