Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A commercial truck driver was stopped by police in Rankin County, Mississippi, for speeding and following too closely. During the stop, the officer noticed the driver was using paper logs instead of the electronic logs typically required for commercial vehicles, and observed inconsistencies in the logs. The driver, after initial denials, admitted to having over $100,000 in the vehicle, later specifying it was $225,000, which he claimed was for truck repairs or his life savings. The officer obtained consent to search the vehicle and found the cash packaged in multiple envelopes. Further investigation linked phone numbers provided by the driver to ongoing federal drug-trafficking investigations, and a trained narcotics dog showed interest in the cash. The State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings, alleging the money was connected to illegal drug activity.The Circuit Court of Rankin County held a bench trial, heard testimony from law enforcement and an expert in drug trafficking, and issued an order of forfeiture, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the cash was connected to drug trafficking. The driver appealed, and the Mississippi Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed the trial court, concluding the State had not met its burden of proof under the relevant forfeiture statute.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case on certiorari. Applying the substantial evidence/clearly erroneous standard, the court found that the trial court’s findings were supported by sufficient circumstantial evidence, including the manner of cash packaging, travel patterns, phone records, and the narcotics dog’s alert. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that the State had met its burden to show the currency was more likely than not connected to illegal drug activity and thus subject to forfeiture. View "Chung v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Carlos Jones, Jr. was convicted of attempted aggravated assault after an incident in which he became angry when a neighbor’s visitor honked a car horn, waking him from sleep. Jones confronted his neighbor, Niesha Russell, and after a verbal argument, retrieved a gun from a car, pointed it at Russell, and fired two shots as she fled toward her house. Russell testified that she saw Jones point the gun at her and heard the shots as she ran, though she was not injured. Jones left the scene immediately after the shooting. He later told police that he had fired into the air rather than at Russell.The case was tried in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County, where the State charged Jones with attempted aggravated assault. At trial, the jury heard testimony from Russell and law enforcement. Jones moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the evidence did not show he intended to harm Russell, but the motion was denied. The jury found Jones guilty, and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with three years to serve and two years of supervised probation. After his motion for a new trial was denied, Jones appealed.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the conviction. The court held that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones intended to shoot Russell, based on the circumstantial evidence that he pointed the gun at her and fired. The court also found that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, as the jury was entitled to resolve conflicting testimony regarding Jones’s intent. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Jones v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Late one night, a man called police twice, claiming he was being chased, and was found by officers pounding on a homeowner’s door in Beaumont, Mississippi. The man appeared erratic and admitted to drinking. He gave police permission to search his vehicle, which he referred to as “his” car. Inside, officers found a sunglasses case on the dashboard containing a glass pipe and a bag of methamphetamine. While being transported to jail, the man remarked that he “should have gotten rid of that shit before [he] called” the police. Subsequent testing confirmed the substance was methamphetamine, and he was indicted for possession of more than one-tenth gram but less than two grams of a Schedule II controlled substance.The case was tried in the Perry County Circuit Court, where a jury found the defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine. The court sentenced him to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he constructively possessed the methamphetamine and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. Applying the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the court held that a rational juror could find the defendant exercised dominion and control over the vehicle and knew about the methamphetamine, especially given his statements and behavior. The court distinguished this case from Ferrell v. State, 649 So. 2d 831 (Miss. 1995), finding additional incriminating circumstances beyond mere proximity. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "Moody v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

An employee at a dental clinic within a correctional facility alleged that she was sexually assaulted by an inmate while working in her office. The incident occurred when the inmate entered her office, closed the door, and, according to her testimony, physically restrained and sexually assaulted her. The victim immediately reported the incident to her supervisor and underwent a forensic examination, which revealed DNA evidence consistent with the inmate being the primary contributor. The inmate claimed the encounter was consensual and that he and the victim had a prior relationship, but no evidence supported this assertion.The Circuit Court of Rankin County presided over the trial, during which the jury found the inmate guilty of sexual battery. The court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. The defendant filed post-trial motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing insufficient evidence and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The trial court denied these motions, leading to the present appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case, applying a de novo standard to the sufficiency of the evidence and an abuse-of-discretion standard to the weight of the evidence. The court held that the evidence, including the victim’s testimony and supporting forensic findings, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the verdict was not so contrary to the weight of the evidence as to constitute an injustice. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction, sentence, and denial of post-trial motions. View "Mayfield v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2003, the defendant was convicted by a jury of armed bank robbery in federal court. At sentencing, the government sought a mandatory life sentence under the federal “three strikes” law, 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), which requires a life sentence for certain repeat offenders convicted of “serious violent felonies.” The government identified five prior convictions it argued qualified as “serious violent felonies.” The district court imposed a life sentence, finding the defendant had three qualifying strikes, but did not specify which prior convictions or which statutory definitions it relied upon.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The defendant’s first motion for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, and that denial was affirmed on appeal. In 2020, the Tenth Circuit authorized the defendant to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, based on recent Supreme Court decisions finding similar statutory “residual clauses” unconstitutionally vague. The defendant argued that his life sentence was imposed under the residual clause of § 3559(c), which he claimed was unconstitutional.Reviewing the district court’s denial of relief de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing court relied on the residual clause to enhance his sentence. The court found that, at the time of sentencing, the legal environment permitted the use of a circumstance-specific approach, allowing the defendant’s California robbery conviction to qualify as a strike under the enumerated clause. As a result, the defendant did not meet the burden required for relief under § 2255. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

A man was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor that occurred in a home on the Choctaw Nation reservation in Oklahoma. The victim was a six-year-old boy, and the defendant, who had recently moved in with his stepdaughter, was alleged to have committed the offense within two days of his arrival. The prosecution charged the defendant under federal law, which required proof that the victim was an Indian and the defendant was a non-Indian.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma presided over the trial. The government presented testimony from the defendant’s stepdaughter and three law enforcement officers, as well as driver’s license records, to establish that the defendant was not an Indian. The stepdaughter testified she did not know of any tribal membership or Indian identity for the defendant. Law enforcement witnesses stated the defendant did not identify as Native American and that inquiries with five major Oklahoma tribes yielded no information about his tribal status. The defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was a non-Indian. The district court denied the motion, and the jury convicted the defendant, resulting in a 30-year prison sentence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a non-Indian, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The court held that the government failed to meet its burden, finding the evidence presented was too speculative and insufficient to establish the defendant’s non-Indian status. The Tenth Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Hebert" on Justia Law

Michael Lawrence Rosebar was convicted of multiple counts of bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and first-degree fraud after misrepresenting himself as a licensed home improvement contractor and misappropriating funds from homeowners over a seven-year period. Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Rosebar was found guilty on several counts and sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment and thirty-six months of supervised release. His sentence was calculated using a criminal history category of II, which included two status points for committing the offenses while on probation.Rosebar appealed his conviction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. After the Sentencing Commission amended the United States Sentencing Guidelines with Amendment 821, which changed the calculation of status points for defendants with fewer criminal history points, Rosebar filed a motion in the district court seeking a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and USSG § 1B1.10. The district court found Rosebar eligible for a reduction but, after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), denied the motion, citing the seriousness of his offenses, their impact on victims, and his lack of remorse.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court properly followed the required two-step inquiry, considered all relevant factors, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the sentence reduction. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying Rosebar’s motion for a sentence reduction. View "USA v. Rosebar" on Justia Law

Jody Greathouse was on probation when he was alleged to have violated its terms by leaving an inpatient drug treatment program before completion. He entered into a Consent Order that revoked his probation but suspended the remainder of his sentence on the condition that he successfully complete the program. The Consent Order included a provision in which Greathouse prospectively waived his right to a probation revocation hearing for any future violations related to the treatment program.After Greathouse left the treatment facility, a community supervision officer submitted an affidavit to the trial court, which then issued an arrest order for Greathouse to serve the remainder of his sentence. Greathouse moved to vacate the arrest order and modify the sentence, arguing that he had entered into the Consent Order without counsel and that the waiver of a future hearing was invalid. At a hearing on the motion, the State did not present evidence of the alleged violation, and the trial court denied Greathouse’s motion.The Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the trial court’s order, holding that under OCGA § 42-8-34.1(b), a court may not revoke probation unless the defendant admits the violation or a hearing is held at which the violation is established by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court found that the statute does not allow for a prospective waiver of the right to a future revocation hearing.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that OCGA § 42-8-34.1(b) limits a trial court’s authority to revoke probation to two circumstances: the probationer admits the violation, or a hearing is held and the violation is proven. A defendant’s purported waiver of a future hearing does not relieve the court of its statutory obligation to hold such a hearing if there is no admission. View "THE STATE v. GREATHOUSE" on Justia Law

In April 2019, a man and his girlfriend, along with her children, were living in an apartment in DeKalb County, Georgia. After being told to move out by the apartment’s primary resident, the man became angry and assaulted his girlfriend in the presence of her child, inflicting multiple injuries including choking, hitting, and stomping. He later transported her, with the help of his daughter, to another apartment in Fulton County, where further violence occurred. The girlfriend was eventually taken to a hospital and pronounced dead. Medical evidence showed she suffered extensive internal and external injuries, including blunt force trauma and strangulation, which were determined to be the cause of death.A DeKalb County grand jury indicted the man for malice murder and related offenses. At trial in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, the jury found him guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for malice murder, with the other counts vacated or merged. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for malice murder and to establish venue in DeKalb County, as the fatal injuries were inflicted there. The court also rejected the defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of the venue statute and related jury instruction, finding no conflict with state or federal constitutional requirements. Finally, the court found the defendant’s arguments regarding the proportionality and constitutionality of his sentence to be factually unsupported or abandoned. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "TAYLOR v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who, along with his wife, adopted two young girls through the foster care system. Years later, when one of the girls was nearly 17, she disclosed to a friend’s mother that she had been sexually abused by her adoptive father over several years. This disclosure led to a law enforcement investigation, during which the defendant voluntarily went to the sheriff’s department to “turn himself in.” He was subsequently interrogated by two officers in a closed interview room at the station. During the third segment of questioning, after persistent and increasingly accusatory interrogation techniques, the defendant confessed to engaging in sexual acts with one of the victims.The Superior Court of San Bernardino County heard pretrial motions regarding the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to law enforcement. The prosecution sought to admit the statements, while the defense moved to suppress them, arguing they were obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The trial court ruled the interrogation was not custodial and admitted the statements. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the victims and law enforcement, while the defense highlighted inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to over 120 years to life in prison.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed whether the defendant’s confession should have been suppressed under Miranda v. Arizona. The appellate court held that while the initial questioning was noncustodial, the interrogation became custodial during the third segment, at which point Miranda warnings were required but not given. The court found the admission of the confession was prejudicial and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "People v. NavaAdame" on Justia Law