Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A native Spanish speaker with limited English proficiency responded to an online advertisement for commercial sex in November 2022. After exchanging text messages with the poster, who was actually an undercover federal agent, he arranged to meet at a hotel, bringing $200, his phone, and condoms. The agent’s messages indicated that the sex would be with minors, specifically describing two girls as ages 14 and 12. The defendant arrived at the hotel, met the agent, received a room key, and was arrested. During booking, when told he was charged with paying for sex with a minor, he expressed surprise and denied speaking to any minor. In a subsequent interview conducted in Spanish about thirty minutes later, he stated he believed he was arranging sex with an adult.A grand jury indicted him on attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted coercion and enticement of a child to engage in prostitution. His first trial ended in a hung jury, but the second resulted in convictions on both counts. The defense argued he did not intend to have sex with a minor and misunderstood the agent’s messages due to his limited English. The district court admitted his immediate booking statement as an excited utterance but excluded his later interview statements. The court also gave jury instructions distinguishing motive from intent and explaining the interstate commerce element, using examples that paralleled the government’s evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary and instructional rulings. The appellate court held that the exclusion of the post-arrest interview statements was not an abuse of discretion, as the statements were made after a significant time lapse and under circumstances suggesting reflection. The court also found no error in the jury instructions regarding interstate commerce or the distinction between motive and intent. The convictions were affirmed. View "US v. Medina" on Justia Law

In 2020, an incident occurred in which Jacob Frederick Ball, while stopped at a traffic signal on a parkway, pointed a handgun in the direction of another driver after the driver had taken a picture of Ball’s license plate due to his reckless driving. Ball then sped away onto a freeway onramp. The driver called 9-1-1, and police later found Ball at his home, recovering a handgun and black gloves from his vehicle. Ball was charged with felony brandishing of a firearm at a person in a motor vehicle, along with two misdemeanors.At the preliminary hearing in the Superior Court of Orange County, the magistrate found probable cause to hold Ball to answer on all charges. Subsequently, the trial judge granted Ball’s motion to dismiss the felony brandishing count under Penal Code section 995, reasoning that there was no evidence the victim actually experienced subjective fear as a result of Ball’s actions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that Penal Code section 417.3 does not require proof that the victim subjectively experienced fear; rather, the statute sets forth an objective standard, requiring only that the defendant’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to experience apprehension or fear of bodily harm. The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the count based on the absence of evidence of subjective fear. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order and directed that the felony brandishing count be reinstated. View "P. v. Ball" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was arrested in Montana in 2019 in connection with a burglary, during which officers found methamphetamine and syringes in his possession. He admitted to being addicted to methamphetamine. He was charged in state court with felony drug possession, and his pretrial release conditions prohibited firearm possession. In 2022, while those charges were still pending, he was found in possession of a stolen firearm and again admitted to daily methamphetamine use. He was subsequently indicted in federal court for being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and for illegally receiving a firearm while under felony indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(n).The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied his motion to dismiss the indictment. The defendant argued that both statutes were facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The district court relied on prior Ninth Circuit precedent and Supreme Court language in District of Columbia v. Heller, concluding that the statutes were consistent with longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by certain groups, such as felons and the mentally ill, and that the defendant had sufficient notice that his conduct was prohibited.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit held that both § 922(g)(3) and § 922(n) are facially constitutional under the Second Amendment, as there are circumstances in which their application is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. The court also held that § 922(g)(3) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant, given his admitted daily methamphetamine use. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA V. STENNERSON" on Justia Law

A man was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer for speeding on Interstate 680. He was the sole occupant of the vehicle and did not have a valid driver’s license, instead presenting a fake one. During an inventory search of the impounded car, the officer found a loaded handgun and a large sum of cash. The firearm was determined to be registered to several previous owners, but not to the man. He was charged with carrying a concealed, loaded firearm in a vehicle and carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him.Before trial in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, the defendant filed a demurrer arguing that the statutes under which he was charged were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. The trial court denied the demurrer. The defendant then pled no contest to the charges and appealed, with the trial court granting a certificate of probable cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court held that California’s licensing scheme for carrying concealed firearms, even as it existed prior to recent amendments, was not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The court reasoned that requiring a license to carry a concealed firearm is a reasonable means of screening for ineligible individuals, such as felons, and does not require a finding of dangerousness for each applicant. The court found that the statutes at issue are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and rejected the argument that the absence of a dangerousness finding rendered the statutes unconstitutional. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. View "P. v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and assault with a firearm, with several enhancements found true, including prior convictions and use of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total prison term of 23 years and four months, later reduced to 21 years and four months after some enhancements were struck on remand. The sentencing court imposed various fines and fees, including a restitution fine, court operations assessment, criminal conviction assessment, and a booking fee. The defendant previously challenged the imposition of these fines and fees on due process grounds, but the California Court of Appeal found any error harmless, as he could pay from future wages.After his conviction became final, the defendant filed a postjudgment motion in the Superior Court of Riverside County to vacate the fines and fees, arguing that statutory changes rendered some unenforceable and that others were unconstitutional without an ability-to-pay hearing. The trial court denied the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief through a freestanding postjudgment motion and suggested that a writ petition would be the proper procedural vehicle.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, held that neither the trial court nor the appellate court had jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s postjudgment motion because his conviction was final and he had begun serving his sentence. The court explained that, absent express statutory authorization, a defendant cannot challenge fines and fees through a standalone motion after judgment is final. The court also rejected arguments that recent statutory amendments or case law provided jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Lawrence Rudolph was convicted for the fatal shooting of his wife, Bianca Rudolph, during a 2016 hunting trip in Zambia. The couple, married for nearly thirty-five years, had substantial marital assets and maintained significant life insurance policies. Their marriage was troubled by infidelity, including Mr. Rudolph’s long-term affair with Lori Milliron, a partner at his dental practice. After Bianca’s death, which Mr. Rudolph claimed was accidental, he collected nearly $4.8 million in life insurance proceeds and purchased several high-value assets. Less than two weeks after returning to the United States, he arranged for Ms. Milliron to join him in Arizona, and they began living together.The Federal Bureau of Investigation in Denver initiated an investigation in 2019, reviewing the Zambian authorities’ findings and conducting its own forensic analysis. In December 2021, Mr. Rudolph was arrested in Denver after being deported from Mexico, and indicted by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on charges of foreign murder and mail fraud. He moved to dismiss for improper venue and to sever his trial from Ms. Milliron’s, arguing that the government engaged in forum shopping and that a joint trial would prejudice his defense. The district court denied both motions, admitted certain statements by Bianca under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, and ordered forfeiture of assets purchased with the insurance proceeds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that venue in Colorado was proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3238, as Mr. Rudolph was both “arrested” and “first brought” to the district in connection with the charges. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying severance, admitting Bianca’s statements under Rule 804(b)(6), or ordering forfeiture of the assets, including interest and appreciation. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and forfeiture order. View "United States v. Rudolph" on Justia Law

A masked assailant entered a jewelry store in Delaware, assaulted the owner with a gun and hammer, smashed display cases, and stole jewelry before fleeing. The owner, Chang Yen Suh, suffered significant injuries requiring hospitalization and months of rehabilitation. Calvin Ushery was indicted for multiple offenses, including first-degree robbery, first-degree assault of a person over 62, possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, and other related charges. After a mistrial in the first jury trial, a second jury trial resulted in Ushery’s conviction on three counts. The State dismissed several other charges, and Ushery was sentenced as a habitual offender to substantial prison terms.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware presided over both trials and sentencing. Ushery appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly admonish the jury against pre-deliberation discussions and exposure to extrajudicial information, and that the court erred by not investigating or excusing an alternate juror who submitted a note raising questions about the evidence and his own hearing difficulties. Ushery claimed these failures violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and requested the adoption of a presumption of juror misconduct when admonishments are lacking.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reviewed the case for plain error, as Ushery’s claims were not raised at trial. The Court held that, although daily admonishments are recommended, the instructions given were sufficient and did not constitute plain error. The Court also found no evidence of juror misconduct or bias, and that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding the alternate juror. The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment of conviction. View "Ushery v. State" on Justia Law

Luis Alfredo Lezama-Ramirez, a noncitizen who had previously been removed from the United States, pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the country in violation of federal law. After his guilty plea, the Probation Office prepared a presentence report (PSR) that included a list of standard and special conditions for supervised release. At sentencing, Lezama-Ramirez’s counsel indicated there were no objections to the PSR, and the district court adopted it. The court imposed a one-year term of supervised release, referencing compliance with standard and special conditions, but did not read these conditions aloud. The written judgment later included the same conditions as those in the PSR.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered the judgment, and Lezama-Ramirez appealed, arguing that there were discrepancies between the oral pronouncement of supervised release conditions at sentencing and those listed in the written judgment. He specifically challenged the imposition of certain standard and special conditions that were not read aloud, as well as differences between the oral and written versions of two particular conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that because Lezama-Ramirez had notice of the supervised release conditions through the PSR and did not object at sentencing, there was no reversible error in imposing the conditions that were not read aloud. However, the court found that the written version of one special condition (Special Condition 2) imposed an additional reporting requirement not included in the oral pronouncement, which constituted an impermissible conflict. The Fifth Circuit vacated the imposition of Special Condition 2 and remanded for the district court to conform it to the oral pronouncement, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. View "United States v. Lezama-Ramirez" on Justia Law

In 1990, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery after abducting a woman from a bar, fatally stabbing her, and leaving her body by a dirt road. Physical evidence, including fingerprints, blood, and items from the bar found near his home, linked him to the crime. The jury recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed, finding multiple aggravating factors. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal.Over the following decades, the defendant filed numerous postconviction motions and habeas petitions, all of which were denied by various courts, including the Florida Supreme Court. In his third and fourth successive postconviction motions, he raised claims based on alleged newly discovered evidence, including declarations that a serial killer confessed to the murder, a witness’s willingness to recant, and purported evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. He also asserted claims under Jones v. State, Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Massiah v. United States, as well as a due process claim regarding a prior appellate decision. The Circuit Court for Walton County summarily denied all claims, finding most to be untimely or procedurally barred under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851, and rejecting others on the merits.The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the summary denial de novo and affirmed. The court held that the defendant’s claims were untimely and procedurally barred because he failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence or to show that the claims could not have been raised earlier. The court also found that the purported new evidence was inadmissible or would not probably produce an acquittal at retrial. Additionally, the court concluded that the due process claim was meritless and that the circuit court correctly denied relief. The summary denials of the third and fourth successive postconviction motions were affirmed. View "Suggs v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in 2003 after pleading no contest to several counts of lewd and lascivious acts with minors and one count of nonforcible oral copulation with a minor. The plea agreement amended one charge from forcible to nonforcible oral copulation, and the factual basis for the plea referenced police reports describing acts involving force. In 2005, mental health professionals evaluated the petitioner and, relying in part on a probation report, certified him as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under California law, finding he had committed a qualifying offense involving force or violence. The Board of Parole Hearings affirmed this certification, and the petitioner did not seek review in the superior court at that time. He has remained in state custody under annual recommitment orders since then.Years later, the petitioner challenged his original MDO certification in the Fresno County Superior Court through a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his conviction did not qualify as a predicate offense for MDO commitment because he did not admit to using force or violence, and that reliance on hearsay in the probation report violated his constitutional rights. The superior court denied the petition, finding the probation report admissible and sufficient to establish use of force, and concluded the petitioner’s offense qualified under the statutory “catchall” provision for nonenumerated crimes involving force or violence.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that a habeas corpus petition is an appropriate means to challenge an initial MDO certification based on the nature of the underlying offense, even many years after the initial commitment. The court further held that the evidentiary rule announced in People v. Stevens, which restricts the use of expert testimony to prove qualifying offenses, does not apply retroactively. The court found sufficient evidence supported the original certification under the law in effect at the time and rejected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "In re Grinder" on Justia Law