DeVillier v. Texas

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-913

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Clarence Thomas

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

Richard DeVillier and over 120 other property owners in Texas alleged that the State of Texas had taken their property for stormwater storage without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state had installed a barrier along a highway median to prevent stormwater from covering the road, which resulted in flooding on the petitioners' land during heavy rainfall. DeVillier argued that the Takings Clause itself authorized him to bring suit, even if the legislature had not affirmatively provided a cause of action.

The District Court denied Texas' motion to dismiss the federal inverse-condemnation claim, concluding that a property owner may sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that Texas law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause. Therefore, DeVillier's claims may proceed under Texas' state-law cause of action. The Court did not resolve the question of whether a property owner may sue for just compensation directly under the Takings Clause, as it was not necessary to do so in this case.

Sheetz v. El Dorado County

Court: US Supreme Court

Docket: 22-1074

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: Amy Coney Barrett

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use

George Sheetz sought to build a small, prefabricated home on his residential parcel of land in El Dorado County, California. However, to obtain a permit, he was required to pay a substantial fee to mitigate local traffic congestion. Sheetz challenged this fee as an unlawful “exaction” of money under the Takings Clause, arguing that the fee amount should be necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his specific development. The County’s predetermined fee schedule, Sheetz argued, failed to meet that requirement.

The trial court rejected Sheetz’s claim and the California Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court of Appeal asserted that the Nollan/Dolan test, which requires permit conditions to have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and “rough proportionality” to the development’s impact on the land-use interest, applies only to permit conditions imposed “on an individual and discretionary basis.” Fees imposed on “a broad class of property owners through legislative action,” it said, need not satisfy that test. The California Supreme Court denied review.

The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the California Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions. The Court found no basis in constitutional text, history, or precedent for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Court did not address the parties’ other disputes over the validity of the traffic impact fee, including whether a permit condition imposed on a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development. The case was remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Kim v. Hanlon

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Docket: 24-1594

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Jordan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

The case involves a challenge to New Jersey's primary election ballot design, known as the "county-line" ballot. The plaintiffs, Andy Kim, Sarah Schoengood, and Carolyn Rush, who are all Democratic candidates for various offices, argue that the county-line ballot design infringes their First Amendment rights. They contend that the design unfairly favors candidates endorsed by local party leaders, placing them in prime ballot positions, while disadvantaging those who are not endorsed or choose not to associate with certain candidates.

The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the use of county-line ballots and require the use of office-block format ballots instead. The District Court granted the injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had shown a severe burden on their First Amendment rights and that the state's interests did not outweigh these burdens.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeals agreed that the county-line ballot design imposed a severe burden on the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. It also found that the design likely violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution, which limits a state's power to regulate elections. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, and that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. The court also found that the balance of harms and the public interest favored the plaintiffs.

B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 23-1078

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Heytens

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Education Law

A West Virginia law, known as the "Save Women's Sports Act," stipulates that athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex, with "male" defined as an individual whose biological sex determined at birth is male. The law was challenged by a 13-year-old transgender girl, B.P.J., who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J. argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by preventing her from participating in her school's cross country and track teams.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia initially granted a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to participate in her school's sports teams. However, upon review of cross-motions for summary judgment, the court reversed its decision, rejecting B.P.J.'s claims and ruling that the law was constitutional and did not violate Title IX.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the law could not lawfully be applied to prevent B.P.J. from participating in her school's sports teams. The court found that the law's sole purpose and effect were to prevent transgender girls from playing on girls' teams, which was not substantially related to an important government interest. The court also found that the law violated Title IX by treating B.P.J. worse than people to whom she was similarly situated, depriving her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and doing so on the basis of sex. The court dismissed the cross-appeal, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for B.P.J. on her Title IX claims.

United States v. Lester

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 22-6077

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Thapar

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Travis Lester, a convicted felon, was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm after law enforcement officers found a stolen .40 caliber pistol in his motel room. The arrest occurred after Lester violated the terms of his supervised release from a previous conviction for possessing ammunition as a felon. During the arrest, officers found a baggie of crack cocaine and $869 in cash on Lester's person. Lester admitted to having marijuana in his motel room. Based on this information, officers obtained a search warrant for the room, where they found the pistol, a digital scale, and a small bag of marijuana.

Prior to his trial, Lester filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the officers' protective sweep of his motel room and his admission about the marijuana, arguing that these violated his Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. The district court denied this motion, finding that the officers had not violated Lester's rights. At trial, the jury convicted Lester, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. The court also imposed an additional seventeen-month prison sentence to be served consecutively due to Lester's violation of the supervised-release conditions from his earlier conviction.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Lester argued that his Miranda and Fourth Amendment rights were violated, that there were evidentiary errors, and that there were mistakes in his sentencing. The appellate court disagreed with Lester's claims and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the officer's question during Lester's arrest was not an interrogation under Miranda, and that the protective sweep of Lester's motel room did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court also found no error in the district court's evidentiary rulings or in its sentencing of Lester.

Estate of Wallmow v. Oneida County, Wisconsin

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-2141

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: St. Eve

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

On July 4, 2021, Gavin Wallmow was arrested for violating his probation and was taken to Oneida County jail. During his booking, Wallmow denied any suicidal tendencies or mental health issues. Two days later, Wallmow's probation officer visited him and noticed a change in his behavior, including him hitting himself and expressing "demonic" thoughts. The officer reported this to a corrections officer at the jail, who then informed her superior. Despite these reports, Wallmow was observed behaving normally during routine checks. On July 8, Wallmow was found unresponsive in his cell, having committed suicide. His estate brought a series of constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the jailers failed to protect Wallmow from himself.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the record did not support an inference that any defendant knew Wallmow faced a serious risk of harm. The court also found no reason to think the County's policies were inadequate, given the absence of any pattern of suicides to put it on notice.

Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the jail's employees had taken reasonable precautions, including checking on Wallmow at least 37 times per day. The court also noted that Wallmow had thrice disavowed any risk of suicide, and nothing indicated otherwise after his talk with his probation officer. The court concluded that the jail's actions complied with the Constitution's requirements.

Lickers v. United States

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-1179

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Judge: SCUDDER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The case involves Jacob Lickers, who was convicted for transporting and possessing child pornography. The conviction was based on evidence found on Lickers' devices, which were seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest for drug possession. The initial search of the devices was authorized by a state court warrant, which later suppressed the evidence due to the unconstitutionality of the initial stop and arrest. However, the case was referred to federal authorities who conducted a second search of the devices under a federal warrant. The federal warrant application did not mention the state court's suppression ruling.

In the lower courts, Lickers' attorney challenged the constitutionality of the initial stop and arrest, and the adequacy of the state search warrant. The state court agreed, suppressing all evidence seized during the stop and any statements made by Lickers. The state charges were subsequently dismissed. However, in the federal court, the same arguments were unsuccessful. Lickers pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 132 months' imprisonment on each count.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, Lickers argued that his trial and appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to argue that the federal agent acted in bad faith by omitting the state court's suppression ruling from the federal warrant application. The court disagreed, finding that the link between the state court's suppression ruling and the federal warrant application was too attenuated to obligate the attorneys to explore the possibility of bad faith. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief.

United States v. Gay

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-2097

Opinion Date: April 12, 2024

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Anthony Gay, a convicted felon, who was found guilty of possessing firearms and ammunition, both of which he was prohibited from possessing due to his prior felony convictions. Gay was a passenger in a car that was stopped by the police, and upon being pursued, he fled on foot. The police testified that they found a gun where Gay had fallen and later discovered bullets in a motel room he had rented. Gay was subsequently indicted and convicted on one firearms count and one ammunition count, leading to a sentence of 84 months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, plus three years' supervised release.

Previously, Gay had contested the admissibility of the bullets found in the motel room, arguing that their discovery violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the district court denied his motion to suppress the bullets, stating that Gay's right to occupy the room had expired, the motel manager had found the bullets before the police were involved, and the manager had the right to admit the police under state law. Furthermore, the court noted that Gay, being on parole, had a diminished expectation of privacy.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Gay argued that the evidence did not support his conviction on the firearms charge, suggesting that the weapon may have been planted. However, the court found that the evidence, including the bullets found in the motel room, supported the firearms charge. The court also dismissed Gay's argument that the reduction of two weeks in preparation time for his second trial was prejudicial, stating that the parties had just been through a trial and the evidence had been assembled.

Gay also contended that the prosecution was unconstitutional, arguing that the Second Amendment permits persons with felony convictions to possess firearms and ammunition. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing precedents that upheld the validity of "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons." The court concluded that Gay, having been convicted of 22 felonies and being on parole, did not fit the description of a "law-abiding, responsible citizen" who has a constitutional right to possess firearms.

United States v. Tyrone Cameron

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-2839

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Tyrone Cameron was convicted of being a felon in possession of ammunition following a three-day trial. The district court sentenced him to 120 months' imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. Cameron appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, that his conviction violated the Second Amendment, that the district court should not have admitted his prior felony convictions involving firearms into evidence, and that the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

The district court had reviewed the evidence, including surveillance footage and testimonies, and found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Cameron's conviction. The court also admitted Cameron's prior felony convictions into evidence, which were relevant to show that Cameron knew he was a felon and knowingly possessed ammunition.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that a reasonable jury could have found there existed ample circumstantial evidence to support Cameron’s conviction. The court also rejected Cameron's Second Amendment challenge, noting that the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen did not cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons. The court found no error in the district court's admission of Cameron's prior felony convictions, as they were relevant to the case and not unfairly prejudicial. Lastly, the court found no prosecutorial misconduct, as the government's remarks during closing arguments were permissible interpretations of the evidence.

United States v. Veasley

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-1114

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Stras

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Devonte Veasley was charged with possessing a firearm while using a controlled substance, following an incident where he shot at his drug dealer. Veasley pleaded guilty to the charge. However, after the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen that a New York law requiring "proper cause" to carry a firearm violated the Second Amendment, Veasley sought to withdraw his plea or have the indictment dismissed. He argued that the federal statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by someone using or addicted to a controlled substance, was facially unconstitutional. The district court did not allow him to withdraw his plea or dismiss the indictment.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected Veasley's facial challenge to the statute. The court reasoned that the prohibition of firearm possession by drug users or addicts does not always violate the Second Amendment. The court drew analogies to historical regulations that restricted the rights of certain groups, such as the mentally ill and those who used firearms to terrorize others, to bear arms. The court concluded that, at least for some drug users, the statute imposes a comparable burden on the right to bear arms and serves a comparable justification. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

USA V. PAYNE

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 22-50262

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Tallman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jeremy Travis Payne, a California parolee, was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, and cocaine. The charges stemmed from evidence obtained from a house in Palm Desert, California, and from Payne's cell phone, which was unlocked by police using Payne's thumbprint during a traffic stop. Payne moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search of his phone and the house violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

The district court denied Payne's motion. It found that the search of Payne's phone was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment given Payne's parole status and the conditions of his parole, which allowed for suspicionless searches of his property. The court also determined that the use of Payne's thumbprint to unlock his phone was not testimonial and therefore did not violate his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the search of Payne's phone did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It found that the search was authorized under a general search condition of Payne's parole, which allowed for the suspicionless search of any property under Payne's control. The court also held that the search of Payne's phone was not unreasonable under California law, which prohibits arbitrary, capricious, or harassing searches.

Regarding the Fifth Amendment claim, the court held that the use of Payne's thumbprint to unlock his phone was not testimonial because it required no cognitive exertion. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment did not apply.

Finally, the court held that there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant for the house in Palm Desert, California, without regard to observations made during a challenged protective sweep of the house.

Bustillos v. City of Artesia

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-2046

Opinion Date: April 17, 2024

Judge: Rossman

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Albert Bustillos, an independent journalist, was filming content for his YouTube channel outside the Navajo oil refinery in Artesia, New Mexico. He was approached by refinery security and later by officers from the Artesia Police Department, including Corporal David Bailey. Despite Bustillos asserting he was on public property and had not broken any laws, Bailey arrested him for failure to identify himself in violation of New Mexico law.

Bustillos sued Bailey and the City of Artesia, alleging violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights and New Mexico law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bailey was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, rejecting Bailey’s qualified immunity defense.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court found that Bailey lacked reasonable suspicion of a predicate crime, which is required to lawfully arrest someone for concealing identity. The court also found that Bustillos had met his burden to show that Bailey violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court dismissed the portion of the appeal relating to Bustillos’s state-law claims, as the defendants had failed to meet their burden to support pendent appellate jurisdiction.

United States v. Wilson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 23-2073

Opinion Date: April 15, 2024

Judge: PHILLIPS

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Health Law

A California-based psychologist, Dr. Rick Q. Wilson, was investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for potential violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA issued an administrative subpoena to obtain Wilson's medical, prescription, and billing records. Wilson challenged the subpoena on statutory, constitutional, and privacy grounds.

The district court initially dismissed the United States' petition to enforce the subpoena, finding it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Fourth Amendment. However, upon reconsideration, the court granted the United States' motion to amend the petition and enforce a narrowed version of the subpoena.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the modified subpoena complied with HIPAA, was not unreasonably burdensome under the Fourth Amendment, and did not violate Wilson's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination due to the required-records exception. The court held that the subpoena was issued within the DEA's authority, was relevant to the DEA's investigation, and was not unreasonably broad or burdensome. The court also found that the records requested fell within the required-records exception to the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

CORBITT v. PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 Ark. 65

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

In Arkansas, attorney Chris Corbitt and other plaintiffs sought to challenge the prohibition of firearms in courthouses. Corbitt had previously attempted to bring a firearm into the Pulaski County District Courthouse and the Juvenile Justice Complex, but was denied. He filed a complaint, which was dismissed by the circuit court and later affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Despite this, Corbitt and other plaintiffs filed another complaint after encountering firearm restrictions in a different courthouse. This complaint was also dismissed.

The circuit court ruled that Corbitt was not entitled to injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, or a writ of mandamus. The court also found that even if issue preclusion were not applicable, it would rule similarly to Judge Wright’s decision regarding the interpretation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-122. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument, stating that it was based on a flawed premise that misread the plain meaning of the statute and ignored the importance of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court emphasized that Amendment 80 gives the Arkansas Supreme Court the power to regulate court procedure, including the discretion to determine when weapons should be allowed in courtrooms.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that Corbitt was collaterally estopped from pursuing his claims due to the previous litigation, but the remaining plaintiffs could proceed. The court further held that attorneys, as officers of the court, are authorized by statute to possess handguns in courthouses. The court reversed the circuit court’s denial of the petition for a declaratory judgment as it pertains to the remaining plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dilbert v. Newsom

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C096274(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 8, 2024

Judge: HULL

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

The case involves Clifford Alan Dilbert, who filed petitions for clemency and/or commutation of his prison sentence with the Governor's office in 2016, 2017, 2019, and 2021. Dilbert claimed that he had not received any communication from the Governor's office regarding the processing of his clemency petition. He sought a writ of mandate to compel Governor Gavin Newsom to process his applications and reapplications for clemency/commutation, render a decision on those applications, and notify him of the decision in a timely manner.

The Superior Court of Sacramento County sustained the Governor’s demurrer to the petition without leave to amend. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right to have his applications processed within a particular time frame and the law imposes no duty to process clemency applications within a particular time frame. Dilbert appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s order. The appellate court found that neither the California Constitution nor any provision of Penal Code sections 4800 to 4813 contains an express requirement that the Governor process clemency applications within a specified time frame. The court also rejected Dilbert's argument that the application instructions created an obligation for the Governor to grant discretionary clemency within a certain amount of time. The court concluded that Dilbert does not have a due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution to have his application processed within a certain time frame.

Mosley v. Superior Court

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: C099530(Third Appellate District)

Opinion Date: April 5, 2024

Judge: RENNER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Jameal M. Mosley, who was charged with unauthorized possession and transportation of a machine gun, being a felon in possession of a firearm for the benefit of a street gang, and being a felon in possession of ammunition. These charges stemmed from warrantless searches of Mosley's car and person, which yielded a loaded magazine and a Glock handgun with an automatic switch. Mosley filed a motion to suppress the magazine and handgun, arguing that the searches were unsupported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

The trial court held a suppression hearing. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department had received a call about a group of men creating a music video in a parking lot, with one of them holding a handgun. The officers arrived at the scene and detained all members of the group, including Mosley. They found a firearm on one of the men, D.M., and another firearm in D.M.'s car. Mosley was detained for approximately 41 minutes before his car was searched, revealing a loaded magazine. A subsequent search of Mosley's person revealed a Glock handgun with a switch. The trial court denied Mosley's motion to suppress, finding that the officers had probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was not prolonged.

Mosley filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. The appellate court agreed with Mosley's argument that the trial court erred in finding the warrantless searches were supported by probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause to search Mosley's car and that the detention was unlawfully prolonged. The court granted Mosley's petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order denying Mosley's motion to suppress and enter a new order granting the motion.

STRYKER v. THE STATE

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

Docket: S24A0125

Opinion Date: April 16, 2024

Judge: Colvin

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Austin Stryker was convicted for malice murder and other crimes related to the shooting and stabbing death of Hannah Bender. Stryker was a member of a small gang, and the prosecution argued that he killed Bender because he suspected she was informing on the gang's activities. Stryker was charged with multiple counts, including malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, possession of a firearm and knife during the commission of a felony, violating the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, concealing the death of another, and tampering with evidence. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder, along with consecutive sentences for other charges.

Stryker appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense when it prevented his counsel from making a closing argument that co-defendants Issac Huff and Dylan Reid would have faced minimum sentences of life in prison had they not pled guilty. He also contended that the prosecutor personally attacked his defense counsel in closing argument and that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on “grave suspicion” after the prosecutor allegedly misconstrued the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in closing arguments.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Stryker's convictions, concluding that his claims failed. However, the court identified merger errors in Stryker’s sentencing that required correction, and thus vacated part of the judgment.

CONN V. KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-SC-0198-DG

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Vanmeter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case involves four appellants who are parole-eligible inmates serving life sentences in the Kentucky Department of Corrections. They were denied any further opportunity at parole for the remainder of their sentences by the Kentucky Parole Board. The appellants challenged the Board's authority to issue a "serve-out," arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of powers.

The Franklin Circuit Court concluded that the Board was within its statutory authority to issue a serve-out on a life sentence and granted summary judgment to the Board. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, reasoning that the legislature had not prohibited the Board from authorizing serve-outs on life sentences.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that the Board has the power to issue a serve-out to an inmate serving a life sentence. The court reasoned that while the current statutory scheme may not explicitly authorize the Board to grant serve-outs, the relevant legislative and administrative history indicates that the legislature has condoned the Board’s use of this power. The court also held that the Board's power to issue a serve-out does not violate the constitutional separation of powers. The court concluded that a serve-out is authorized by the legislature and is not constitutionally impermissible.

WOODALL V. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Court: Kentucky Supreme Court

Docket: 2022-SC-0232-MR

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Keller

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1998, Robert Keith Woodall was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a teenage girl. In 2015, Woodall filed a Motion to Vacate the Death Sentence Due to Intellectual Disability, arguing that he is intellectually disabled and thus the imposition of the death penalty would violate his constitutional rights. The trial court denied his motion without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.

On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and again denied Woodall’s motion. The court found that Woodall had not proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he is intellectually disabled. Woodall appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the decision of the trial court. The court found that the trial court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Woodall had not proven that he is intellectually disabled by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also rejected Woodall's arguments that the trial court violated his due process rights and Confrontation Clause rights by admitting and relying on a report without requiring the report's author to testify at the hearing.

State of Maine v. Ouellette

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 29

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Stanfill

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Roger Ouellette, who was convicted of Operating Under the Influence (OUI) following a police stop in his driveway. The police officer had observed Ouellette's vehicle crossing the center line of the road, which led the officer to suspect a violation of traffic laws. Ouellette entered a conditional guilty plea after his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop was denied by the trial court.

The trial court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Ouellette due to his observed traffic violation. Ouellette argued that the stop was unjustified as the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. However, the court determined that the stop was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion that Ouellette had violated the motor vehicle statute requiring vehicles to be operated within a single lane.

On appeal, Ouellette argued that the stop was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it occurred within the curtilage of his home without a warrant and without any applicable exception to the warrant requirement. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the court's failure to grant Ouellette’s motion on that ground did not constitute obvious error and that the stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion. The court also found that Ouellette's argument regarding the stop occurring within the curtilage of his home was unpreserved and did not amount to obvious error.

Nevadans for Reprod. Freedom v. Washington

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 28

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Stiglich

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

The case revolves around an initiative petition proposed by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom (NRF) to establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom. The petition would grant every individual the right to make decisions regarding all matters related to pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Respondents Donna Washington and Coalition for Parents and Children challenged the petition in district court, alleging that it failed to meet statutory and constitutional requirements and sought to prevent the Secretary of State from placing the initiative on the ballot. They argued that the initiative petition violated the single-subject requirement because it considered multiple medical procedures, instead of being limited to only pregnancy or abortion. The district court granted the injunction, finding the initiative petition invalid for three reasons: it does not contain a single subject, its description of effect is misleading, and it requires an expenditure of money without raising the necessary revenue.

The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's decision. The court found that all the medical procedures considered in the initiative petition concern reproduction and are germane to each other and the initiative's single subject of establishing a right to reproductive freedom. The court also concluded that the description of effect was legally sufficient and the initiative petition does not require an expenditure of funds. Therefore, the court held that the district court erred in preventing the Secretary of State from placing the initiative petition on the ballot.

Sisolak v. Polymer80, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 30

Opinion Date: April 18, 2024

Judge: Stiglich

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of several Nevada statutes regulating "ghost guns," or unfinished firearm frames or receivers. The respondent, Polymer80, Inc., a manufacturer of gun-related products, argued that the definition of "unfinished frame or receiver" in the statutes was impermissibly vague, making the statutes unconstitutional. The district court agreed with Polymer80, concluding that the definition did not clearly explain key terms or notify individuals when raw materials would become an unfinished frame or receiver. The court also found that the definition allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada disagreed with the lower court's findings. The court found that the terms used to define "unfinished frame or receiver" had ordinary meanings that provided sufficient notice of what the statutes prohibited. The court also concluded that the statutes were general intent statutes that did not lack a scienter requirement and did not pose a risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision, holding that the statutes were not unconstitutionally vague.