Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

James Lynch was stopped in April 2022 under suspicion of driving under the influence and was subjected to five standardized field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. Lynch showed signs of impairment and was arrested and charged with DUI. In February 2023, Lynch moved to exclude the HGN test evidence, arguing it was unreliable without expert testimony. The Gallatin District Court agreed, requiring expert testimony for the HGN test and excluding it from evidence.The Commonwealth sought a writ of prohibition from the Gallatin Circuit Court to prevent the exclusion of the HGN test. The circuit court denied the writ, finding that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate great injustice or irreparable injury, as other evidence from the sobriety tests and officer observations could still be used. The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the circuit court's decision, holding that the exclusion of the HGN test constituted irreparable injury and that the test was admissible without expert testimony if properly administered by a trained officer.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate great injustice or irreparable injury, as required for a writ of prohibition. The court emphasized that the remaining evidence was sufficient for prosecution and that the exclusion of the HGN test did not cause incalculable damage. The case was remanded to the Gallatin Circuit Court to reinstate the order denying the Commonwealth's petition for a writ of prohibition. View "Lynch v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Bobby Ray Osborne entered a conditional guilty plea to first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, receiving a five-year prison sentence. The case arose when officers, acting on a tip about a stolen trailer, visited Osborne's property. Osborne consented to a search, during which he was found with a baggie containing a brown substance believed to be heroin and a large amount of cash. The officers did not find the stolen trailer but obtained a search warrant for Osborne's residence, yielding additional evidence.The Estill Circuit Court denied Osborne's motion to suppress the heroin and cash, finding that he voluntarily consented to the search. Osborne's subsequent motions to reconsider were also denied. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case to clarify the distinction between a consensual encounter and an investigative detention under the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, holding that Osborne voluntarily consented to the search. The court found that the officers' actions did not convert the consensual encounter into an investigative detention. The court also upheld the application of the plain view doctrine, determining that the incriminating nature of the baggie was immediately apparent once Osborne removed it from his pocket. The court concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that additional findings were unnecessary. View "Osborne v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Jeremy Mills was convicted in Allen Circuit Court for multiple offenses, including Unlawful Transaction with a Minor, Possession of Matter Portraying Sexual Performance by a Minor, and being a Persistent Felony Offender. Mills met the victim, A.C., through Facebook, where she initially claimed to be eighteen. They met in person, used drugs, and engaged in sexual activities, which Mills recorded. A.C. later revealed she was thirteen. Mills was sentenced to twenty years in prison.The Allen Circuit Court jury acquitted Mills of rape, strangulation, and kidnapping charges but convicted him on other counts. Mills argued that he never knew A.C. was underage, a claim contradicted by A.C. and Edward Troutt, a fellow inmate who testified that Mills confessed to knowing A.C.'s true age. Mills contended that Troutt fabricated the confession after accessing his case file.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case, focusing on Mills' claim of a Brady violation due to the Commonwealth's failure to disclose a video interview with Troutt. The Court found that the video, which contained inconsistencies with Troutt's trial testimony, was favorable impeachment evidence. The trial court's failure to disclose this evidence and its refusal to recall Troutt for cross-examination constituted a Brady violation. The Supreme Court held that this violation undermined confidence in the verdict, warranting a reversal of Mills' convictions and a remand for further proceedings. View "Mills v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In April 2012, Glenn A. Peeler, Jr. was convicted of two counts of complicity to commit robbery and being a persistent felony offender, resulting in a 22-year prison sentence. Peeler's convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. In August 2013, Peeler filed a pro se motion under Kentucky Rule of Criminal Procedure (RCr) 11.42, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion lacked proper verification as required by RCr 11.42(2). The trial court denied the motion on its merits in October 2013 without addressing the verification issue. Peeler's appeal of this ruling was dismissed as untimely by the Court of Appeals.In August 2016, Peeler filed a second RCr 11.42 motion, which was denied as successive and procedurally barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial in October 2018. In December 2019, Peeler filed a motion under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 60.02(e), arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over his unverified 2013 motion. The trial court denied this motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting Peeler had waived any jurisdictional challenge by not raising it earlier.Peeler then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus, seeking a nunc pro tunc order to dismiss his 2013 motion, notify him of its deficiency, allow correction, and appoint counsel. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, stating Peeler had an adequate remedy by appeal and had waived the jurisdictional issue.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court held that Peeler had waived any jurisdictional issues by not raising them timely and had an adequate remedy by appeal. The Court also found that the trial court had general subject-matter jurisdiction over Peeler's RCr 11.42 motion and that substantial compliance with procedural requirements was sufficient. Thus, Peeler was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "Peeler v. Simcoe" on Justia Law

David Young was convicted by a jury in the Lewis Circuit Court of wanton murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and DUI with aggravating circumstances. The incident occurred on May 18, 2020, when Young, after consuming several beers, lost control of his vehicle in heavy rain, crossed the centerline, and collided head-on with a car driven by Jessica Tumlin, resulting in her death and serious injuries to two minor passengers, C.C. and B.M. Young's blood alcohol content was found to be 0.156 nearly three hours after the collision.The trial court denied Young's motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge, and he was convicted on all counts, receiving a sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment. Young appealed, raising several issues, including the sufficiency of evidence for the murder charge, exclusion of a defense witness, limitations on discussing DUI per se law, sufficiency of evidence for serious physical injury to B.M., and a double jeopardy claim regarding the DUI and murder charges.The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the murder and assault convictions but found a double jeopardy violation with the DUI conviction. The court held that the DUI conviction should be vacated because the elements required to prove DUI were subsumed within the wanton murder charge, thus violating double jeopardy principles. The case was remanded for entry of a new judgment consistent with this finding. View "Young v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Jamie Boggs was convicted of several sexual offenses, including sexual abuse, rape, and sodomy, all involving victims under twelve years of age. The abuse occurred between 2011 and 2016 while Boggs was in a relationship with Retta H., who had five children. The victims, Betty and Susan, testified to frequent and severe sexual abuse by Boggs. Retta corroborated some of the abuse and testified to physical abuse by Boggs. Boggs denied all allegations and was sentenced to forty years in prison.The Harlan Circuit Court handled the initial trial, where Boggs was convicted. He appealed, alleging multiple errors, including improper bolstering of the victims' testimony by a forensic interviewer, hearsay statements, improper admission of prior bad acts, and issues with jury instructions related to unanimity and double jeopardy. The trial court's jury instructions were not objected to by Boggs, leading to a waiver of those claims on appeal. The court also admitted evidence of prior bad acts to explain the victims' delayed reporting of the abuse.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case. The court found that the forensic interviewer's testimony did constitute improper bolstering but deemed it harmless error. The court also found no palpable error in the admission of prior bad acts testimony or hearsay statements. The court concluded that the jury instructions issues were waived and not subject to review. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Boggs' conviction and sentence. View "Boggs v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Earl K. Johnson was convicted by a jury in Logan Circuit Court on four counts of complicity to traffic in methamphetamine, one count of engaging in organized crime, and one count of complicity to murder. The jury found him to be a persistent felony offender and recommended a life sentence, which the court imposed. Johnson appealed, arguing several trial errors, including a violation of his right to confrontation when a key witness, Pam Wetton, testified remotely due to health concerns.The Logan Circuit Court allowed Pam to testify via Zoom based on a letter from a physician’s assistant stating that travel would be difficult for her. Johnson objected, arguing that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The trial court overruled his objection, and Pam testified remotely. Johnson was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life in prison.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the case and found that allowing Pam to testify remotely violated Johnson’s right to confrontation. The court held that the Commonwealth failed to establish that remote testimony was necessary to further an important public policy and that the reliability of the testimony was assured. The court concluded that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the complicity to traffic convictions, as Pam’s testimony was crucial to those charges. Therefore, the court reversed Johnson’s convictions and sentences for complicity to traffic in methamphetamine.However, the court affirmed Johnson’s convictions and sentences for engaging in organized crime and complicity to murder. The court found that Pam’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for these charges due to the overwhelming evidence of Johnson’s guilt presented by other witnesses. The court also addressed and dismissed Johnson’s other claims of trial errors, including improper admission of other crimes and bad acts, hearsay statements, and the denial of a mistrial. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2011, Carlos Heard was convicted of third-degree depraved-mind murder and second-degree intentional murder for shooting and killing his brother and another person during a struggle over a gun. The district court sentenced him to 313 months for second-degree intentional murder and 180 months for third-degree depraved-mind murder. Heard appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, challenging the district court's decision to allow impeachment evidence at his trial. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions, and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review. Heard subsequently filed four postconviction petitions, all of which were denied.In 2023, Heard filed a fifth postconviction petition, arguing that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decisions in State v. Coleman and State v. Noor announced new substantive rules regarding the mental-state element of third-degree depraved-mind murder, which should apply retroactively to his case. The district court denied his petition, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that Coleman and Noor did not announce new rules but rather clarified existing law.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Coleman and Noor did announce new rules of substantive law that apply retroactively. Coleman clarified that the mental-state element for third-degree depraved-mind murder requires a showing of reckless disregard for human life, while Noor held that this mental state cannot exist when the defendant's actions are directed at a particular person. The court also held that a postconviction petitioner is not required to independently satisfy the requirements of State v. Knaffla if the petitioner establishes that a new interpretation of state law is retroactively applicable in the first postconviction petition filed after the new interpretation is announced.The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and remanded the case to the district court to consider the effect of Coleman and Noor on Heard's third-degree depraved-mind murder conviction. View "Heard v. State" on Justia Law

Patrick Scullark, Jr. was charged with possession of a controlled substance after police officers found methamphetamine in his fanny pack during a search incident to his arrest on unrelated charges. Scullark attempted to pass the fanny pack to another person before being handcuffed. He argued that the search violated his constitutional rights because he could no longer access the fanny pack at the time it was searched.The Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County denied Scullark’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the search valid as a search incident to arrest. Scullark entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, agreeing with Scullark that the search did not satisfy the search incident to arrest (SITA) exception because he could not access the fanny pack at the time it was searched.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the court of appeals decision, affirming the district court’s order. The court held that the search of the fanny pack was valid under both the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. The court concluded that because the fanny pack was worn around Scullark’s waist at the time of his arrest, it was considered part of his person. Therefore, the search was justified as a search of his person incident to a lawful arrest, requiring no additional justification. The court emphasized that the SITA exception allows for a full search of the arrestee’s person and items immediately associated with the person. View "State v. Scullark" on Justia Law

Felipe N. Gonzalez Vazquez was involved in a standoff with law enforcement officers at a residence in Lincoln, Nebraska, on August 26, 2020. Vazquez, who had locked himself in a bedroom, fired multiple gunshots during the standoff, injuring two officers and fatally wounding one. Vazquez was charged with first degree murder and other related felonies. He was found guilty on all counts by a jury and sentenced to prison.In the district court, Vazquez filed motions in limine to exclude testimony about his gang affiliation and the specific nature of the arrest warrants, which were granted. During the trial, Vazquez made two motions for mistrial based on alleged violations of the court's order in limine, both of which were denied. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges, and Vazquez was sentenced to a term of not less than 70 years nor more than life for first degree murder, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other convictions.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Vazquez argued that the district court erred in denying his motions for mistrial, admitting certain testimony, and accepting the guilty verdicts due to insufficient evidence. He also claimed cumulative error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel in 17 respects. The Nebraska Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's rulings, determined that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and concluded that Vazquez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit, were not sufficiently raised, or could not be resolved on direct appeal. Consequently, the court affirmed Vazquez's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Vasquez" on Justia Law