Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Todd Marshall Frandsen, who was charged with three counts of lewd conduct with minors under sixteen, based on allegations from his three sons. The boys reported that Frandsen engaged in lewd and abusive conduct, including fondling and other forms of mistreatment, over many years. Each son described similar patterns of abuse, which included threats and psychological intimidation. Frandsen was tried before a jury in Bannock County, Idaho, in March 2023.After a four-day trial, the jury convicted Frandsen of two counts related to the older boys and acquitted him of the charge involving the youngest. Frandsen was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences with 25-year fixed terms, later reduced to 20 years fixed upon his motion for reconsideration. He filed timely appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not removing a juror who recalled knowing one of the victims, admitting certain text messages between a victim and their mother, permitting a forensic interviewer to offer expert-like testimony without proper disclosure, and imposing an excessive sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining the juror, as she provided unequivocal assurances of impartiality and her past acquaintance with a victim did not establish actual or implied bias. The Court found the text messages were relevant and non-hearsay, though it did identify harmless error in admitting references to uncharged physical abuse without required Rule 404(b) notice. Similarly, it determined that the forensic interviewer’s limited expert testimony, though improper due to non-disclosure, was harmless given the acquittal on the related charge. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was not excessive. Accordingly, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Frandsen" on Justia Law

During a protest in Oakland, California on May 29, 2020, Robert Alvin Justus, Jr. drove a van while his co-defendant, Steven Carrillo, fired an assault rifle at two Protective Security Officers stationed outside a federal courthouse. One officer was killed and the other sustained permanent disabilities. Prior to the incident, Justus and Carrillo connected through social media, sharing content that promoted antigovernment views and referenced the “Boogaloo” movement, known for its extremist rhetoric. Evidence at trial included Justus’s posts and communications indicating animosity toward law enforcement and the federal government, as well as their coordination before the attack.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presided over the trial, where Justus was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder of persons assisting federal officers under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 1114(3), 1111, and 1112. The district court sentenced Justus to life imprisonment for murder and 240 months, to run concurrently, for attempted murder. Justus challenged the admissibility of his social media evidence, the district court’s jury instruction regarding duress, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his convictions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Justus’s social media posts as relevant and probative of his intent, nor did it err in finding the evidence admissible under Rules 401, 403, and 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The appellate court also found the duress jury instruction proper, as the defense was unavailable but duress-like evidence was admitted to address Justus’s mental state. Finally, the panel concluded that sufficient evidence supported the convictions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA V. JUSTUS" on Justia Law

De’Andre Owens was the subject of a controlled drug buy operation in Centralia, Illinois, on March 15, 2022. Law enforcement provided a confidential informant, Charlie Anderson, with money and recording equipment to purchase methamphetamine from Owens. The exchange occurred under police surveillance, but the recording device did not capture the transaction clearly. After the sale, Anderson was followed by Owens, prompting coordinated surveillance by detectives until Anderson safely rejoined them and turned over methamphetamine. While awaiting trial in jail for this offense, Owens attempted to bribe Anderson not to testify, orchestrating a series of calls offering Anderson $10,000 for his silence.In July 2023, Owens was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on counts of distributing methamphetamine and witness tampering. At trial, several law enforcement officers and experts testified regarding the procedures used in the controlled buy and the subsequent investigation. The jury found Owens guilty on both counts. The district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment, classifying him as a career offender based in part on a prior state drug conviction. Owens had initially objected to the career offender enhancement but withdrew that objection at sentencing.Owens appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing errors related to expert testimony, jury instructions, handling of dual-role witnesses, and the career offender enhancement. The Seventh Circuit held that Owens forfeited or waived each argument. The court found no plain error in the admission of expert testimony, the inclusion of a witness in a jury instruction, or the handling of dual-role testimony, and concluded Owens had waived his objection to the career offender enhancement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "USA v Owens" on Justia Law

The case centers on a defendant who participated in a series of armed robberies targeting narcotics traffickers. Two particular robberies, one in Elmont and another in the Bronx, resulted in the deaths of two individuals. The defendant was involved in planning the Elmont robbery, though not present during it, and actively participated in the Bronx robbery. A superseding indictment charged him with conspiracy and attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, as well as conspiracy to distribute large quantities of marijuana.Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the defendant was acquitted of attempted robbery in the Elmont incident but convicted on the other charges, including conspiracy and attempt related to the Bronx robbery, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The district court initially imposed lengthy sentences on all counts, running them concurrently. The defendant later challenged his convictions under two firearm-related counts after Supreme Court decisions clarified the definition of a “crime of violence.” The government agreed, and those convictions were vacated. At resentencing, the district court imposed consecutive sentences of 180 months each for conspiracy and attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery, and a concurrent 60-month sentence for the drug conspiracy.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant argued the district court erred by imposing consecutive sentences on the two Hobbs Act charges because they related to the same underlying robbery, and the aggregate exceeded the statutory maximum for a single Hobbs Act offense. The Second Circuit held that conspiracy and attempt are distinct offenses under the Hobbs Act, and Congress permits consecutive sentences for such convictions, even if the total exceeds the maximum for one offense. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and rejected additional challenges to sentencing calculations and procedures. View "United States v. Gunn" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in December 2017 with one count of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child, based on allegations that she had inappropriately touched a six-year-old girl, A.G., who was the daughter of her then-boyfriend. Before trial, the court allowed both the admission of the child’s statements from a 2017 police interview and permitted A.G. to testify. In 2019, the State requested that A.G. testify outside the defendant’s presence via video, citing potential trauma. After a hearing in 2020, the trial court granted this request, finding that testifying in front of the defendant would traumatize and impair A.G.’s ability to testify. In 2023, as A.G. had aged, the defense sought a new hearing on this issue. At the new hearing, a school counselor testified about A.G.’s general emotional state and possible trauma but did not specifically link trauma to testifying in the defendant’s presence.The Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Criminal Division, relying on the counselor’s testimony, again permitted A.G. to testify outside the defendant’s presence. A jury trial followed in October 2023, during which A.G. testified by video and the jury found the defendant guilty. The court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial, concluding that although the prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant’s post-arrest silence, this was harmless error.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed whether the requirements of Vermont Rule of Evidence 807 and the Confrontation Clause were met. The Court held that the trial court’s finding—that requiring A.G. to testify in the defendant’s presence would cause trauma substantially impairing her ability to testify—was clearly erroneous because the evidence did not specifically support such trauma would result from the defendant’s presence. As a result, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, concluding that the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated. View "State v. Sylvester" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial relating to the disappearance of a fellow college student with whom he was last seen. The defense’s strategy at trial was to present alternative explanations for the missing person’s fate, including accidental hypothermia, and called a forensic pathologist as an expert witness. During cross-examination, the expert stated that if someone purposely placed another person in a dangerous situation where they could not return to safety, that would be considered a homicide. Trial counsel did not object or further clarify the testimony. The jury found the appellant guilty of second degree murder.Following conviction and sentencing, the appellant’s counsel filed a direct appeal, which challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Gage County, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based mainly on the handling of the expert’s testimony. After an evidentiary hearing—including depositions of trial counsel—the district court found that counsel’s decisions about the expert’s testimony were strategic and did not amount to deficient performance. The district court denied postconviction relief.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions independently. The court held that trial counsel’s response to the expert’s testimony was a strategic decision and not objectively unreasonable. The court also found that additional claims raised for the first time on appeal could not be considered. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Keadle" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who forcibly entered the home of his former partner, S.E., with whom he shared a child. On May 12, 2023, after their relationship had deteriorated and following multiple threats by him against S.E., he kicked in the door of the house where S.E. was staying. He struck S.E. and, when her brother Jordan attempted to intervene while armed, the defendant shot and killed Jordan. He then shot S.E. in both legs, including while she was holding their child, though the child was not physically harmed. The defendant was charged with eight felony offenses, including first degree murder (premeditated and felony murder), use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, domestic assault, burglary, and child abuse.The Washington County District Court allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior uncharged assaults by the defendant against S.E., finding this evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes. The court denied the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction, reasoning that he had unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by breaking into the residence. The court also permitted S.E. to remain in the courtroom during the trial as an essential witness. The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, some to run concurrently.On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of prior assaults was properly admitted as it provided necessary context for the charged crimes. The Court found no error in the refusal to instruct on self-defense or in allowing S.E. to be present during trial, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. However, the Court held that it was error to sentence the defendant both for felony murder and for the predicate felony of burglary, and that sentences for use of a deadly weapon must be served consecutively, not concurrently. All sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing, but the convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Logan" on Justia Law

After police responded to a noise complaint, they found the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with two tires on a driveway and two tires touching a public street. Officers detected alcohol and obtained a breath sample showing a blood alcohol level of .127. The defendant admitted to drinking earlier. He was charged with driving under the influence, third offense, based on alleged prior DUI convictions.The County Court for Lancaster County initially accepted the defendant’s no contest plea, but the District Court for Lancaster County vacated the sentence, finding the plea was not properly elicited. On remand, a new plea hearing was held and several exhibits were reoffered, but the exhibits intended to show the defendant’s prior convictions were not offered or received. The County Court, mistakenly believing these exhibits were in evidence, enhanced the conviction and sentenced the defendant for a third-offense DUI. The District Court affirmed, finding the plea proper and the sentence within statutory limits.The Nebraska Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the defendant could not challenge the enhancement because he had not raised the issue previously and had, through defense counsel’s statements, invited any error regarding the admission of prior convictions. The appellate court treated the enhancement as falling under the invited error doctrine and declined to address whether the sentence was excessive absent proof of prior convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that plain error occurred because there was no evidence in the record establishing prior convictions to support a third-offense DUI enhancement. The Court held that the lower courts erred by enhancing and sentencing the defendant absent such proof and that the invited error doctrine did not apply. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for a new enhancement and sentencing hearing. View "State v. Molina" on Justia Law

A woman called 9-1-1 to report a suspicious four-door Chevrolet Silverado driving slowly in a rural area of Willacy County, Texas. Thirty minutes later, Officer Garcia arrived and saw only the appellant’s pickup truck, which was not a Chevrolet Silverado, driving down a dirt road. Without witnessing any traffic violation or confirming the vehicle matched the caller’s description, Officer Garcia activated his emergency lights to initiate a stop. The appellant continued at a slow pace, stopped to open a gate, and was ultimately arrested after a physical altercation. The appellant was charged with evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle.At trial in the 197th District Court of Willacy County, the jury found the appellant guilty. The appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State failed to prove the lawfulness of the attempted detention, but the motion was denied. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the appellant was sentenced to two years’ confinement, probated for three years. On appeal, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Officer Garcia’s testimony and the circumstances were sufficient to support a finding that the detention was lawful beyond a reasonable doubt.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case on petition for discretionary review. The court held that the evidence was insufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Garcia’s initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. The court found insufficient specific, articulable facts linking the appellant’s vehicle to any criminal activity and concluded that the lawful-arrest element of the offense was not satisfied. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered a judgment of acquittal. View "HERNANDEZ v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

A convenience store employee in Plentywood, Montana, discovered a small bag containing methamphetamine on the store floor during her shift and called law enforcement. Surveillance footage was reviewed, and a deputy identified Shawn Andersen as a person who had been in the area where the bag was found. The deputy did not watch all of the footage but focused on the time around when the bag appeared. Later, another bag of methamphetamine was found in Andersen’s pocket when he was arrested at the county jail. Both baggies tested positive for methamphetamine. At trial, the State’s case relied heavily on the surveillance footage and related testimony to link Andersen to the drugs found at the store.The Fifteenth Judicial District Court in Sheridan County presided over Andersen’s jury trial. During deliberations, the jury asked to review the surveillance footage. While they watched, the State’s legal assistant audibly commented, “There it is,” as the video showed the disputed moment. Andersen’s counsel immediately moved for a mistrial, arguing that the comment could have improperly influenced the jury. The District Court denied the motion, and the jury convicted Andersen on all counts. Andersen was sentenced to a combination of suspended and consecutive sentences for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Andersen’s motion for mistrial. The Supreme Court held that the legal assistant’s comment constituted improper third-party jury misconduct, creating a presumption of prejudice. Because the District Court neither declared a mistrial nor conducted an inquiry to rebut this presumption, the Supreme Court found this to be an abuse of discretion. The conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial on all counts. View "State v. Andersen" on Justia Law