Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

James Guthrie was charged with multiple counts of sexual offenses involving two victims. Relevant to this appeal, one count alleged that Guthrie committed first-degree statutory rape against Victim 2, specifically that he knowingly had sexual intercourse with her when she was less than fourteen years old. At trial, Victim 2 testified that the incident occurred in 2017, and though she initially indicated it happened when she was 14, she also described herself as a “preteen” at the time. The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense took place before Victim 2 turned fourteen.After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Mississippi County, Guthrie was found guilty on all counts. He appealed, contending that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Victim 2 was under fourteen when the offense occurred. The Missouri Court of Appeals initially reviewed the case, and then the Supreme Court of Missouri accepted transfer and exercised jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, under the standard requiring the court to view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury was permitted to credit Victim 2’s testimony that she was a “preteen” at the time of the incident, which by definition means younger than thirteen. The Court found that this testimony provided sufficient evidence that the crime occurred before Victim 2 turned fourteen, as required by statute. The Court rejected arguments that conflicting testimony or the lack of precise dates undermined the verdict, and it noted that no due process or instructional challenges were preserved. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction and the judgment of the circuit court. View "State vs. Guthrie" on Justia Law

In this case, a young woman was fatally shot on a Providence street in August 2021 while standing with her boyfriend beside her parked car. The shooting involved a dark sedan that sped by and fired multiple shots, striking the victim. The case remained unsolved for several months until, in December 2021, police stopped a vehicle for traffic violations. The defendant, seated in the rear, was among the occupants. After observing suspicious behavior and a lowered window in inclement weather, officers retraced the vehicle’s route and found a satchel containing a firearm. Forensic testing later matched the gun to shell casings from the murder scene and identified the defendant as the primary DNA contributor. Investigators also obtained incriminating information from an associate of the defendant, including phone communications linking him to the crime.After the defendant was indicted on multiple charges related to the murder and weapon offenses, he filed pretrial motions in Providence County Superior Court to suppress cell phone records obtained via search warrant and DNA evidence from a buccal swab he had consented to during police questioning. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied both motions. At trial, the jury convicted the defendant of most counts, and the trial justice sentenced him to two consecutive life terms plus additional years. The defendant appealed, arguing that the cell phone warrant lacked probable cause and that his consent to the DNA swab was not voluntary.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. It held that the affidavit supporting the cell phone warrant, when considered in totality, established probable cause. It further held that the defendant’s consent to the buccal swab was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. The court found no constitutional violations and upheld the convictions. View "State v. Pinkerton" on Justia Law

A man checked into a hotel room in New Jersey in April 2021 and later moved to a larger room, turning in his key for the first room. After the initial room was cleaned, hotel staff discovered two handguns and letters with distinctive handwriting in the room’s safe. Police, notified by the hotel manager, linked the man to the room and discovered he had an outstanding arrest warrant. After a standoff, police arrested the man in his new hotel room. A search warrant was obtained and, upon execution, police found large quantities of various drugs, drug packaging materials, cash, and additional evidence hidden above the room’s ceiling tiles, including drug trafficking paraphernalia and letters matching those previously found.A federal grand jury indicted the man for being a felon in possession of firearms, possessing fentanyl and methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the hotel room, arguing the search exceeded the warrant’s scope. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the motion, finding probable cause supported the warrant and, alternatively, the good-faith exception applied. At trial, the court allowed a detective to give lay opinion testimony about drug trafficking based on his experience. The jury found the defendant guilty on all charges, and he was sentenced to 192 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed three claims: that the search of the ceiling was improper, that improper lay opinion testimony was admitted, and that the court erred in denying a spoliation instruction related to missing body camera footage. The Third Circuit held the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the admission of some improper lay opinion testimony was harmless given overwhelming evidence, and the denial of a spoliation instruction was not an abuse of discretion. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Evans" on Justia Law

The case involves a criminal prosecution for sexual abuse of a minor on a military base. The defendant admitted to sexual activity but claimed he was asleep during the acts, raising a sexsomnia defense. The central dispute at trial concerned the defendant’s state of mind, specifically whether he was awake or asleep. Both sides presented expert witnesses. The defense expert, Dr. Kushida, opined that the victim’s account was consistent with sexsomnia, while the government’s expert, Dr. Bornemann, countered that the described actions were too complex to have occurred during sleep. During trial, Dr. Kushida also offered new opinions about the absence of malingering—suggesting the defendant was not faking symptoms for personal gain—which had not been disclosed before trial.The case was previously tried in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. At trial, after Dr. Kushida introduced the new malingering opinions, the government sought to have Dr. Bornemann rebut them. The defense objected to the adequacy and timing of the government’s disclosure regarding Dr. Bornemann’s new rebuttal opinions. The district court overruled the objection, allowed Dr. Bornemann’s testimony, and permitted a brief pre-cross-examination interview. The jury convicted the defendant on the counts related to sexual encounters in the girl’s bedroom.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the government was required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 to provide pretrial notice of the rebuttal opinions offered by Dr. Bornemann. The court held that the government’s duty to disclose rebuttal expert testimony is triggered only when the defense has timely disclosed the opinions being rebutted. Because the defense had not disclosed Dr. Kushida’s malingering opinions prior to trial, the government was not required to provide pretrial notice of Dr. Bornemann’s rebuttal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Crow" on Justia Law

The case concerns a criminal defendant who, in 2006, pleaded guilty to murder after shaking his six-week-old son, causing fatal injuries. The plea agreement included a provision in which the defendant expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence. The trial court accepted the plea and, after a sentencing hearing, imposed a sentence above the recommended amount, citing several aggravating factors, including the statutory aggravator for “shaken baby syndrome.” The defendant did not file a direct appeal at that time.In 2022, the defendant sought permission from the Elkhart Circuit Court to file a belated appeal, arguing that he had recently learned that an appeal waiver cannot bar a challenge to an illegal sentence. He asserted that the trial court had relied on improper aggravating factors and that his waiver should not preclude appellate review. The trial court denied the petition, finding the defendant was neither diligent nor without fault in his late filing and, more importantly, that the appeal waiver barred his claim under Indiana precedent. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the defendant was diligent, without fault, and eligible for a belated appeal based on a prior appellate decision, but a dissent argued the waiver should bar the appeal.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It clarified that under Anderson v. State, a defendant is only eligible for a belated appeal if he would have had the right to bring a direct appeal, which, after a waiver, is limited to claims that the sentence is “illegal”—meaning outside the statutory range or unconstitutional. The Court found the defendant’s claims did not allege an “illegal” sentence and affirmed the trial court’s denial, but instructed that the dismissal be without prejudice. View "Ortiz v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

On November 18, 2022, a confrontation took place in downtown Waterloo, Iowa, involving members of two rival gangs. Quintorey Kemp, associated with the "Only the Brothers" gang, had previously displayed a firearm at a barbershop during an encounter with members of the "All About Action" gang, including Andrew Spates and Keivon Anderson. Laindrell Cooper, also affiliated with "All About Action," arrived at the scene dressed in all black and wearing a mask, having been dropped off nearby. Surveillance footage captured Cooper approaching the barbershop, walking past waiting vehicles, and ultimately pursuing Kemp, firing multiple shots at him as Kemp fled.Cooper was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and possession of ammunition by a felon. He pleaded guilty to the ammunition charge. During sentencing, the district court applied the attempted murder cross-reference in the Sentencing Guidelines, concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that Cooper had attempted to murder Kemp. The district court rejected Cooper's arguments that he acted in self-defense or imperfect self-defense, finding no credible evidence that Cooper reasonably believed he or others were in imminent danger, and instead determined Cooper was the aggressor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed Cooper’s appeal. The court held that Cooper’s constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was foreclosed by binding Eighth Circuit precedent. The court further held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings regarding Cooper's intent and the lack of justification for self-defense or imperfect self-defense, and properly applied the cross-reference for attempted murder in sentencing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

On September 15, 2022, a woman named Nyvelle Quick Bear was fatally shot while inside Justin Bradford’s house. Initially, Bradford told authorities the shooting was accidental and involved a .22 caliber revolver. However, forensic evidence showed that Quick Bear was killed by a .45 caliber bullet fired from outside the house. Surveillance footage and witness testimony identified Clayton Fire Thunder as the person who approached Bradford’s house with a gun after having been drinking heavily. Testimony and forensic evidence indicated that Fire Thunder fired the shot that killed Quick Bear. Fire Thunder later denied possessing a gun during two separate interviews with law enforcement.Fire Thunder was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on charges of involuntary manslaughter and making false statements to federal law enforcement. At trial, the jury found him guilty on all counts. The district court determined the offense levels for the convictions, applied a three-level enhancement for substantial interference with the administration of justice regarding the false statement convictions, and grouped the offenses under the Sentencing Guidelines. Ultimately, the court imposed a total sentence of 96 months, which included upward variance to the statutory maximums.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Fire Thunder challenged the sentencing enhancement, the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Eighth Circuit held that any error in applying the enhancement was harmless because it did not affect the Guideline range or the sentence imposed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the upward variance and statutory maximum sentence, concluding that the district court reasonably considered aggravating factors. Finally, the appellate court held that sufficient evidence supported each conviction. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Thunder" on Justia Law

On January 9, 2022, Sam Sando was involved in two significant events. Early that morning, he had a domestic dispute with Asatu Abalo, during which he allegedly threatened her with a firearm and warned her that there would be gunfire the next day. Later that evening, Sando and his cousin arranged to meet Andrew Meyer, who had earlier tried to sell Sando fake marijuana. When Meyer and two companions arrived at the meeting point, Sando and his cousin approached the vehicle with guns drawn and fired at them, resulting in the death of one occupant. Both Sando and his cousin fled but were arrested a week later. Although Sando was acquitted of first-degree murder in state court, he was subsequently prosecuted in federal court on charges related to attempted robbery, drug trafficking, and firearm use.At the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the government dismissed one count before trial, and a jury found Sando guilty on three remaining counts: attempted interference with commerce by robbery, attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Sando challenged several of the district court’s evidentiary decisions, including the exclusion of Abalo’s state court deposition, the exclusion of a portion of another witness’s prior testimony, limitations on impeachment of a government witness, and the admission of evidence related to the domestic dispute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed each of Sando’s claims for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the deposition and prior testimony, limiting impeachment, or admitting evidence of the domestic dispute, either because the evidence was inadmissible under the rules or any error was harmless. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Sando" on Justia Law

A licensed medical doctor in New York was charged with unlawfully distributing controlled substances, specifically opioids, to multiple patients between 2014 and 2015. Evidence at trial showed the doctor continued prescribing large quantities of oxycodone and hydrocodone even after learning that patients were addicted, diverting medications, or abusing other substances. The doctor was repeatedly warned by insurers, pharmacies, and the state medical society about overprescribing.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York presided over the case. After a jury trial, the doctor was convicted on thirty-two counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States, the defendant argued the jury instructions were erroneous and sought acquittal or a new trial, but the district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed three main issues: whether the district court’s jury instructions improperly used an objective rather than subjective standard of intent, whether expert testimony and evidence about New York’s medical standards were improperly admitted, and whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Second Circuit agreed the jury instruction on intent was erroneous under the new Ruan standard but held the error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s subjective intent. The court also found the evidentiary rulings proper, as the expert testimony assisted the jury without usurping its function. The ineffective assistance claim was deemed more appropriate for collateral review and not addressed on direct appeal. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Parasmo" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours, police in Pittsburgh received two alerts from the ShotSpotter system, indicating a total of five gunshots near a specific residential address. Officer Powers, responding within seconds of the second alert, observed a car with its headlights on and two occupants, the appellant in the driver’s seat and a woman in the passenger seat. As the officer approached in his cruiser, activating his emergency lights, the appellant exited the car and walked toward a nearby house, while the passenger began moving around inside the car. The officer ordered the appellant to return, and when he did not comply, officers detained and handcuffed him. Subsequent investigation led to charges against the appellant for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license.The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, which argued the investigative detention lacked reasonable suspicion. At trial, the court found the appellant guilty. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the appellant was detained when ordered to return and that, under the totality of the circumstances—including the ShotSpotter alerts, the timing and location, the presence of only the appellant and his companion, and their behavior—reasonable suspicion justified the stop.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed whether the Superior Court gave undue weight to the appellant’s proximity to the ShotSpotter alert in determining reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court held that, even excluding the characterization of the area as “high-crime,” the facts—multiple ShotSpotter alerts for gunfire, immediate police response, the exclusive presence of the appellant and his companion at the scene, and their furtive and evasive conduct—provided reasonable suspicion particular to the appellant at the time of detention. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court’s order upholding the denial of suppression. View "Commonwealth v. Foster" on Justia Law