Skoly v. McKee

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 23-1687

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: LYNCH

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

A Rhode Island oral and maxillofacial surgeon, Dr. Stephen T. Skoly, refused to comply with a COVID-19 Emergency Regulation issued by the Rhode Island Department of Health (RI DOH) that required all healthcare workers and providers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Following his public declaration of noncompliance, the RI DOH issued a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order against him. Skoly then filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state and its officials, alleging violations of equal protection, due process, and First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The district court's decision was based on the fact that the state officials were either entitled to absolute or qualified immunity for their actions. The court held that the RI DOH directors were exercising prosecutorial authority delegated to them by Rhode Island law, thus granting them absolute immunity. As for Governor McKee, the court found that he was protected by qualified immunity as Skoly had no clearly established right to continue practicing while violating the vaccine mandate. The court also rejected Skoly's First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that the posting of the Notice constituted government speech, which could not form the basis of a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim.

Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Skoly's complaint. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's findings that the state officials were entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity and that Skoly's constitutional claims were without merit. The court also upheld the dismissal of Skoly's First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that Skoly had not sufficiently alleged that he was targeted due to his opposition to the First Emergency Regulation.

US v. Carmona

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1947

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: Selya

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The defendant, Ronald Yoel Marte Carmona, was convicted on charges related to multiple fentanyl sales. He appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his motions to suppress the fruits of a Terry stop and arguing that the evidence supporting his six convictions was insufficient.

Previously, the defendant had been indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl, and five counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute forty grams or more of fentanyl. Each of the distribution counts corresponded with a particular controlled buy. The defendant moved to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop and the fruits of a search of an apartment, arguing that the stop was unconstitutional because it was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The district court denied the motions, finding that the agents possessed reasonable suspicion to effectuate the stop.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the Terry stop was reasonable, grounded in articulable suspicion, and that the verdicts were supported by the record evidence. The court also found that the agents who stopped the defendant possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was involved in past criminal conduct, making the Terry stop permissible. The court further held that the evidence presented at trial established that a rational factfinder could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the charges.

Black v. Decker

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Docket: 20-3224

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: CARNEY

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Immigration Law

This case involves two legal permanent residents, Carol Williams Black and Keisy G.M., who were detained by the U.S. government for several months without a bond hearing under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), pending the conclusion of their separate removal proceedings. Black and G.M. each sought habeas relief, asserting that their prolonged detentions without any bond hearing violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. The district court granted Black's petition and he was released, while G.M.'s petition was denied.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court concluded that the constitutional guarantee of due process precludes a noncitizen’s unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a bond hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment granting habeas relief to Black, concluding that the district court properly required the government to show the necessity of his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. As to G.M., the court concluded that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged and reversed the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief.

Little v. Llano County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-50224

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: WIENER

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

A group of patrons of the Llano County library system in Texas sued the county, its officials, and the library's director and board, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated when seventeen books were removed from the library due to their content. The plaintiffs claimed that the books, which covered topics such as sexuality, homosexuality, gender identity, and the history of racism, were removed because the defendants disagreed with their messages. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to return the books and preventing them from removing any other books during the lawsuit.

The defendants appealed the decision, arguing that the removal of the books was part of the library's standard process of reviewing and updating its collection, known as the "Continuous Review, Evaluation and Weeding" (CREW) process. They also claimed that the plaintiffs could still access the books through an "in-house checkout system."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, but modified the language of the injunction to ensure its proper scope. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim, as the evidence suggested that the defendants' substantial motivation in removing the books was to limit access to certain viewpoints. The court also found that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, as they would be unable to anonymously peruse the books in the library without asking a librarian for access. The court concluded that the balance of the equities and the public interest also favored granting the injunction.

Mid Valley Pipeline v. Rodgers

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 23-60536

Opinion Date: June 5, 2024

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Contracts

The case involves Mid Valley Pipeline Company, an interstate pipeline company, and the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners. In 1949, the Levee Board granted Mid Valley a permit to construct and maintain two pipelines across a levee in Mississippi. The permit was not limited to a term of years and could be revoked by the Levee Board if Mid Valley failed to comply with any of the permit's conditions. In 2005, Mid Valley was instructed to relocate its pipelines, which it did at a cost of over $700,000. In 2020, the Levee Board informed Mid Valley that it would be charging an annual pipeline crossing fee and would revoke all existing permits for pipelines not currently paying the fee. Mid Valley did not respond to these notices.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of the Levee Board, dismissing Mid Valley's claim that the imposition of the annual fee and the revocation of the permit violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the 1949 permit was not a contract.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed with the district court that the 1949 permit was not a contract. The court noted that under Mississippi law, a contract requires mutual assent, among other elements. The court found that the permit was a unilateral grant of permission by the Levee Board, and there was no evidence of mutual assent to form a contract. Therefore, the Levee Board's actions did not violate the Contract Clause.

Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Township

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1179

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: WHITE

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

The case involves Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC and five Michigan residents who sued Howell Township, Michigan, alleging that the township's zoning restrictions, which prevented Oakland Tactical from constructing and operating a commercial shooting range, violated the Second Amendment. The district court granted the township's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the zoning restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.

The district court's decision was made before the Supreme Court announced a new framework for deciding Second Amendment challenges in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Bruen, and the district court again granted judgment for the township.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that while the Second Amendment protects the right to engage in commercial firearms training as necessary to protect the right to effectively bear arms in case of confrontation, it does not extend to training in a particular location or at the extremely long distances Oakland Tactical seeks to provide. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' proposed conduct—commercial training in a particular location and long-distance commercial training—was not protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Therefore, the township's zoning restrictions did not violate the Second Amendment.

Wayside Church v. Van Buren County

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Docket: 23-1471

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: KETHLEDGE

Areas of Law: Class Action, Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The case involves a dispute over a protective order issued by the district court, barring Visser and Associates, PLLC (“Visser”) from communicating with potential class members in a putative class action. The case originated from a claim by Wayside Church that Van Buren County had violated the federal Constitution’s Takings Clause by foreclosing on its property to satisfy a tax debt and then selling the property for a higher amount without refunding the difference. The case was revived in federal court following the Supreme Court's overruling of a previous decision that required such claims to be pursued in state court.

The district court preliminarily approved a proposed class action settlement between the plaintiffs and defendant counties. Around the same time, Visser began sending solicitation letters to property owners who it thought might have takings claims against counties in the Western District of Michigan. The district court issued a show-cause order, finding that Visser’s solicitation letters did not cross the line from permissible solicitation to misleading, improper communication with potential class members. However, the court was not satisfied with Visser’s explanation for why it had sent solicitation letters to named plaintiffs who were already represented by class counsel.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's protective order. The court found that Visser had violated ethical rules by soliciting named plaintiffs and misleading the court. The court also found that Visser had continued to solicit potential class members after the district court had preliminarily approved the class settlement. The court concluded that Visser's conduct posed a serious threat to the fairness of the litigation process and the administration of justice generally. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the protective order.

Lewicki v. Emerson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-3030

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: EASTERBROOK

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

David Lewicki was part of a group that attempted to rob Humberto Pelayo, resulting in Pelayo suffering permanent injuries. Lewicki claimed he did not inflict the injuries and had tried to protect Pelayo. However, the jury found him guilty of attempted robbery causing serious bodily injury, and he was sentenced to 65 years in prison as a habitual offender. Lewicki's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the state courts.

Lewicki then sought federal relief, arguing that his appellate lawyer had been ineffective for not arguing that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court agreed, issuing a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The court found that Lewicki's lawyer's failure to raise the speedy trial argument amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court did not find that Indiana had violated the Speedy Trial Clause. Instead, it ordered Indiana to release Lewicki unless it provided him with a new appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court had erred in granting relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel without finding that Lewicki had been prejudiced by his lawyer's failure to raise the speedy trial argument. The court explained that ineffective assistance of counsel requires both deficient performance and prejudice. The court also found that Lewicki did not have a strong speedy-trial claim. Despite a nearly three-year delay between his charge and trial, the court found that Lewicki had not shown prejudice from the delay. The court noted that Lewicki's own lawyer had proposed multiple continuances, and Lewicki had not shown that evidence was lost or memories faded due to the delay. The court also noted that little of Lewicki's time in custody could be attributed to the delayed trial of the attempted-robbery charge. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and upheld Lewicki's conviction and sentence.

Smith v. Garland

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 23-2874

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: Brennan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Immigration Law

Maria Elvia Smith, a Mexican citizen, was denied legal status in the U.S. by immigration authorities. Smith had been married to a U.S. citizen, Arlo Henry Smith, Sr., who filed a Form I-130 petition to classify her as his immediate-relative spouse. However, Arlo died while the petition was pending, and it automatically converted to an I-360, Widow(er) Petition. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Smith's I-360 petition, concluding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her marriage to Arlo was bona fide for immigration purposes. This conclusion was based on evidence of Smith's continued relationship with her ex-husband and her inconsistent statements to immigration officials.

Smith sued the United States Attorney General, USCIS, and the Board, alleging that they improperly denied her I-360 petition and violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed her complaint, finding that she did not plausibly allege that USCIS and the Board acted improperly in denying her petition, acted without observance of the procedure required by law, or substantively violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that there was no merit to Smith's claims that the agencies improperly ignored evidence and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying her I-360 petition. The court also found that the agencies had complied with the procedures required by law. Finally, the court rejected Smith's claim that the agencies violated her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

United States v. Dameron

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-3291

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: SCUDDER

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Emanuel Dameron was charged with possessing a firearm as a felon after police officers spotted him on a live video feed from a pole camera, observed an "L-shaped object" resembling a gun in his waistband, and subsequently found a gun on him during a frisk search on a public bus in Chicago. Dameron moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence gathered during the stop, arguing that the police's search violated the Fourth Amendment and the standards set in Terry v. Ohio. The district court denied Dameron's motion, and he was found guilty at trial.

The district court held an evidentiary hearing, during which the officer operating the pole camera testified about his familiarity with the neighborhood, its history of gang and narcotic activity, and his observation of the "L-shaped object" in Dameron's waistband. The court concluded that the visible bulge in Dameron's waistband and his presence in a high-crime area generated reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop. Dameron was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to 110 months' imprisonment.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Dameron renewed his contention that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. He argued that Illinois permits the concealed carrying of firearms and that the police had no way of knowing whether he was an authorized license holder. The court declined to address this argument as it was not presented to the district court. Instead, the court focused on the fact that Dameron was on a public bus when the search occurred, noting that the Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits carrying a firearm on public transportation. The court concluded that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Dameron had violated the law and that their pat-down search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision.

USA v. Hancock

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 22-2614

Opinion Date: June 5, 2024

Judge: HAMILTON

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Patrick Hancock, who pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. His federal sentence was enhanced on the grounds that he also violated Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-6, which makes it a felony for a civilian to impersonate a law enforcement officer. Hancock appealed his sentence, challenging the Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. The evidence supported the district court’s findings that Hancock represented himself as a police officer by wearing various law enforcement paraphernalia.

The district court applied a four-level sentencing enhancement, finding that Hancock's attire was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) applied. The court sentenced Hancock to 48 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. The district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range because it found that Hancock’s crime involved “extreme conduct” and that greater punishment was needed to deter future criminal conduct.

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s decision. The court rejected Hancock’s argument that he did not intend to deceive anyone at Costco into thinking he was a law enforcement officer. The court also rejected Hancock’s argument that Indiana’s false impersonation statute violates the First Amendment. The court held that the statute was narrowly tailored to serve the government’s compelling public interest in preserving public safety and protecting the reputation of law enforcement.

Leachco v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Docket: 22-7060

Opinion Date: June 4, 2024

Judge: Ebel

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

Leachco, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that manufactures and markets various products, appealed the denial of its request for a preliminary injunction to halt administrative enforcement proceedings by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Leachco argued that the statutory removal protections for CPSC commissioners and administrative law judges (ALJs) violated Article II of the Constitution and the separation of powers. The district court denied Leachco's motion for a preliminary injunction, stating that even if Leachco's constitutional arguments were valid, the alleged constitutional violations were insufficient to establish that Leachco would suffer "irreparable harm" if the injunction was denied.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that under current Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, Leachco's subjection to proceedings before an agency whose officials allegedly have unconstitutional protection against removal is insufficient, by itself, to establish irreparable harm. The court also found that Leachco failed to show that the removal protections for CPSC commissioners and its administrative law judge were unconstitutional. Therefore, Leachco failed to satisfy the irreparable harm requirement necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction.

American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, LLC, et al

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Docket: 23-13138

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: Newsom

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

The case involves the American Alliance for Equal Rights (the Alliance), a membership organization dedicated to ending racial classifications and preferences in America, and Fearless Fund Management, LLC (Fearless), a venture capital fund that invests in businesses led by women of color. Fearless organized the "Fearless Strivers Grant Contest," a funding competition open only to businesses owned by black women. The Alliance, representing several members who wished to participate in the contest but were not black women, sued Fearless, alleging that the contest violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits private parties from discriminating on the basis of race when making or enforcing contracts.

The district court denied the Alliance's request for a preliminary injunction to prevent Fearless from closing the application process. The court concluded that the Alliance had standing to sue and that § 1981 applied to Fearless's contest. However, it also concluded that the First Amendment "may bar" the Alliance's § 1981 claim on the ground that the contest constitutes expressive conduct, and that the Alliance hadn't demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable injury.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the Alliance has standing and that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate because Fearless's contest is substantially likely to violate § 1981, is substantially unlikely to enjoy First Amendment protection, and inflicts irreparable injury. The court affirmed the district court's determination that the Alliance has standing to sue but reversed its decision and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction.

Aldersgate United Methodist Church of Montgomery v. Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc.

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

Docket: SC-2023-0830

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law

A dispute arose between the Alabama-West Florida Conference ("the Conference") of the United Methodist Church, Inc. ("the UMC"), and 44 Methodist churches in the Conference ("the churches"). Amid disagreements within the UMC over issues of human sexuality, the churches sought to leave the UMC with their properties under a provision of the Book of Discipline, the governing law of the UMC. After the Conference denied the churches the ability to vote to disaffiliate under that provision, the churches asked the Montgomery Circuit Court to order the Conference to grant them that vote. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Montgomery Circuit Court held an emergency hearing and heard evidence. The next day, the court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, according to the court, the relief that the churches requested was "ecclesiastical in nature and would require Court interference in matters of church autonomy," which would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The churches appealed that judgment.

The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The churches argued that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, they said, the case presents only "civil and property issues." However, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that the churches' central claims turn entirely on the interpretation of the provision of the Book of Discipline and whether their efforts to leave the UMC were consistent with that church law. Under existing First Amendment law and the court's precedent, that interpretive issue constitutes an ecclesiastical question that courts do not have jurisdiction to decide. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.

Tarr v. People

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 CO 37

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: Hart

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Christopher Oneil Tarr, who struck a pedestrian with his car while allegedly intoxicated. At the hospital, Tarr refused to have his blood drawn for alcohol testing, despite being informed that under Colorado’s Expressed Consent Statute, he had already consented to such a test by driving. The police proceeded with the blood draw without a warrant, and the results were used to charge Tarr with several crimes, including vehicular homicide—DUI. Tarr moved to suppress the results of the blood draws, arguing they were unconstitutional as he had clearly revoked his consent and the police did not yet have a warrant when his blood was drawn. The trial court denied the motion, and Tarr was found guilty.

The trial court's decision was based on a previous case, People v. Hyde, which held that there is no constitutional right to refuse a blood-alcohol test. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing with its interpretation of Hyde. Tarr then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado for certiorari review.

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the lower courts' decisions. It held that a conscious driver can revoke their statutory consent to a blood draw. Once consent has been revoked, the police are generally required to obtain a warrant before trying to conduct a blood draw. Otherwise, any evidence obtained from the blood draw should be excluded from trial unless one of the recognized exceptions to the exclusionary rule applies. The case was remanded for consideration of any outstanding arguments concerning the admissibility of the evidence.

Worrell v. DeSantis

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Docket: SC2023-1246

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law

The case revolves around Monique H. Worrell, who was suspended from her position as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit by Governor Ron DeSantis through Executive Order 23-160. The order alleged that during Worrell's tenure, the administration of criminal justice in the Ninth Circuit was fundamentally derelict, constituting both neglect of duty and incompetence. The order detailed that Worrell authorized or allowed charging practices that permitted violent offenders, drug traffickers, serious juvenile offenders, and pedophiles to evade incarceration when otherwise warranted under Florida law. It also alleged that Worrell authorized or allowed practices that prevented assistant state attorneys from seeking certain sentencing enhancements and limited charges for possession of child pornography.

The Florida Constitution allows the governor to suspend any state officer not subject to impeachment for neglect of duty or incompetence. Worrell, not being subject to impeachment, was constitutionally subject to suspension. The Florida Senate has the power to remove from office or reinstate the suspended official.

The Supreme Court of Florida's role was to determine whether the governor had met the constitutional mandate to state the grounds of the officer's suspension. The court's review was deferential, confirming that the governor had specified the applicable grounds for suspension and that the allegations in the suspension order bore a reasonable relation to the asserted basis for the suspension.

The Supreme Court of Florida found that the Executive Order passed this test. It named the grounds for Worrell's suspension—neglect of duty and incompetence—and provided various factual allegations that reasonably related to those grounds of suspension. The court disagreed with Worrell's claim that the allegations in the Executive Order were impermissibly vague or that they addressed conduct that fell within the lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, the court denied Worrell's petition for a writ of quo warranto.

State v. Tran

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Docket: SCAP-23-0000063

Opinion Date: June 4, 2024

Judge: RECKTENWALD

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

This case involves a challenge to a statute and a constitutional provision in Hawaii that relate to the prosecution of continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen. The defendant, Alvin Tran, was charged with violating this statute. After a trial, a jury found him guilty. Tran then filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the statute and the constitutional provision violated the U.S. Constitution because they did not require the jury to unanimously agree on the specific acts that constituted the continuous sexual assault. The trial court denied this motion. Tran also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that it was not specific enough. The trial court granted this motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the case but allowing the state to refile the charges.

The Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii held that the statute and the constitutional provision did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court reasoned that these provisions did not authorize non-unanimous jury verdicts, which would be unconstitutional. Instead, they allowed a unanimous jury to find a defendant guilty even if the jurors did not agree on which specific acts constituted the continuous sexual assault. The court also held that the indictment against Tran was sufficient. Therefore, the court vacated the trial court's order dismissing the case and remanded the case for further proceedings.

State v. Barr

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal

Docket: 49376

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: Zahn

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The defendant, Britian Lee Barr, was charged with eleven counts of sexual exploitation of a child for possessing child pornography. Barr had previously been convicted of felony possession of sexually exploitative material in 2011. On the second day of trial, Barr pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual exploitation of a child for possessing child pornography and admitted to being a repeat offender. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the other counts were dismissed. Barr was sentenced to five, fifteen-year fixed sentences to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate seventy-five-year fixed sentence. The consecutive nature of the sentences was mandated by Idaho Code section 19-2520G(3).

Barr appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to perceive that it had discretion to designate indeterminate portions for the mandatory fifteen-year sentences and that it had discretion to order the sentences be served concurrently. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the decision of the district court because Barr had not preserved his arguments for appeal. Barr returned to the district court and filed a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Barr argued that the consecutive sentence requirement in Idaho Code section 19-2520G(3) is unconstitutional because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers by usurping the judiciary’s inherent power to determine whether a sentence runs consecutively or concurrently. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the legislature is empowered to designate mandatory consecutive sentences under the plain language of Article V, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. Barr timely appealed.

The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that determining whether a sentence is to be served consecutively or concurrently is not a power reserved exclusively to the judiciary. As a result, section 19-2520G(3) does not violate the separation of powers provision of the Idaho Constitution. The court affirmed the district court's decision denying Barr's Rule 35(a) motion.

People v. Jefferson

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2024 IL 128676

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: Cunningham

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Trenton Jefferson was tried for first degree murder in the circuit court of St. Clair County. The jury found him guilty but answered negatively to a special interrogatory asking if the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Jefferson personally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death. The appellate court reversed Jefferson’s conviction for unrelated reasons and ordered a new trial. Jefferson then argued that the jury’s answer to the special interrogatory, under the doctrine of issue preclusion as embodied in the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution, barred the State from arguing or presenting evidence in his retrial that he personally discharged a firearm causing the victim’s death. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the jury’s answer to the special interrogatory did not bar the State from arguing or presenting evidence that Jefferson discharged the firearm.

The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. The court concluded that the jury’s answer to the special interrogatory and general verdict could be understood as an indication that the jury was unable to determine whether Jefferson or another individual shot the victim, but that it had determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that either one or the other did. Because a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which Jefferson sought to foreclose from consideration, Jefferson failed to establish that the doctrine of issue preclusion applied. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Jefferson’s motion to suppress evidence. The State, on retrial, is not barred from again arguing that either Jefferson or the other individual shot the victim. However, the State is barred from seeking a sentence enhancement on remand, as the State conceded that Jefferson cannot get the enhancement ever again.

Russell v. State of Indiana

Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Docket: 21S-LW-00451

Opinion Date: June 3, 2024

Judge: Molter

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 1995, Jerry E. Russell Sr. was convicted of the murder of Pamela Foddrill, along with other crimes, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) plus 120 years. Russell appealed his sentence, which resulted in a modification of his sentences for criminal confinement and criminal deviate conduct, reducing his total sentence to LWOP plus 73 years. In 2003, Russell filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR), which was dismissed in 2019 in exchange for a resentencing hearing. The resentencing court upheld Russell's original sentence of LWOP plus 73 years.

Russell appealed the resentencing order, arguing that he was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for an LWOP sentence, that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections, and that his sentence was inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and his character. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected all of Russell's arguments and affirmed the resentencing court's order. The court found that Russell had not proven that he was intellectually disabled, that his convictions did not violate double jeopardy protections, and that his sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and his character. The court also found that Russell had not been denied due process during his resentencing hearing.

State v. Johnson

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Docket: 21-1891

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: McDERMOTT

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Lasondra Johnson, who was charged with first-degree murder following a series of events that led to her shooting and killing Jada YoungMills. Johnson claimed she acted in self-defense, invoking Iowa's "stand your ground" law, which negates the requirement to retreat before using force if one is lawfully present and not engaged in illegal activity. The jury acquitted Johnson of first-degree murder but found her guilty of the lesser charge of assault causing serious injury. Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly instructed the jury on the stand-your-ground defense and a related instruction on the presumed reasonableness of using deadly force.

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson's conviction but reversed the restitution order. Johnson sought further review, arguing that the jury instructions were misleading and confusing because there was no evidence to support an instruction to the jury that she was engaged in a separate illegal activity—assault—at the time of the shooting. She also argued that the district court imposed an unconstitutional restitution award against her and erred in relying on improper considerations and by applying a fixed sentencing policy.

The Supreme Court of Iowa found that the jury instructions were indeed misleading and confusing. The court noted that the instructions allowed the jury to consider the shooting itself as an assault, which would defeat Johnson's justification defense. This interpretation would effectively nullify the stand-your-ground statute, as every use of deadly force could be considered an assault. The court concluded that the jury instructions failed to convey the law in such a way that the jury had a clear understanding of Johnson's justification defense. As a result, the court reversed Johnson's conviction, vacated the sentence, and remanded the case for a new trial.

League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Docket: 124378

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: STEGALL

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Election Law

The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed a case involving the League of Women Voters of Kansas and other organizations against the Kansas Secretary of State and the Kansas Attorney General. The plaintiffs challenged three new Kansas election laws, alleging that they violated various provisions of the Kansas Constitution. The laws in question prohibited the false representation of an election official, prohibited election officials from counting advance ballots that did not have a signature or had a signature that an election official determined did not match the signature on file, and prohibited any person from collecting and returning more than 10 advance ballots for other voters.

The case was initially heard in the Shawnee County District Court, which denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction against the false representation statute. The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against the signature verification requirement and the ballot collection restriction. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions, and the cases were consolidated.

The Supreme Court of Kansas held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that the false representation statute was constitutionally infirm. Therefore, the district court erred in denying their request for a temporary injunction. The court also held that the signature verification requirement was a valid effort by the Legislature to provide "proper proofs" of the right to be a qualified elector. However, the court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the statute and its implementing regulations complied with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim that the ballot collection restriction was constitutionally infirm, because the restriction was not a new qualification on the right to be an elector, and because the proscribed activity—the delivery of ballots—was not political speech or expressive conduct.

State of Maine v. Judkins

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2024 ME 45

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: Horton

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Corydon Judkins was convicted of domestic violence assault after a jury trial. The case revolved around an incident where the police were called to Judkins' apartment, and the victim alleged that Judkins had assaulted her. The victim's statements were recorded by the responding officer's body camera. However, the victim did not testify at the trial. The State introduced the body camera footage, including the victim's statements, as evidence. Judkins objected, arguing that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated as he could not cross-examine the victim. The trial court admitted the footage, citing the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The State conceded that the victim's statements were testimonial and should not have been admitted. The court agreed, stating that once Judkins was removed from the apartment, there was no ongoing emergency that would support the admission of the victim's answers as non-testimonial statements. The court found that the victim's testimonial statements were inadmissible as she did not testify at trial and Judkins had no prior opportunity to cross-examine her.

The court then considered whether the error was harmless. It noted that the State relied heavily on the victim's statements in the video to prove its case, and the evidence of Judkins's guilt was not overwhelming. The court also noted that the jury had asked to review the body camera footage during its deliberations. The court concluded that it could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim's statements on the body camera recording did not affect the verdict. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Padilla v. Torres

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Citation: 2024-NMSC-007

Opinion Date: February 5, 2024

Judge: Bacon

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Roy Padilla and Ray Torres, where Padilla, the landlord, filed a petition in the metropolitan court under the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act (UORRA), alleging that Torres, his tenant, had not paid rent. The metropolitan court ruled in favor of Padilla, ordering Torres to pay past-due rent and costs amounting to $927. Torres appealed this judgment to the Second Judicial District Court, but the appeal was dismissed because Torres had failed to request a recording of the metropolitan court’s trial.

The district court held that without a record of the trial, it could not effectively review Torres’s appeal. The court also rejected Torres’s assertion that he had a right to a recording, explaining that Torres, as appellant, was required to provide an adequate record on appeal. Torres then appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the metropolitan court’s practice of not recording civil proceedings except on a party’s request was inconsistent with Section 34-8A-6(B) (1993) and violated his state and federal constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that the failure to record the trial in this matter is contrary to Section 34-8A-6(B) (1993). The court concluded that the statute imposes a duty on the metropolitan court to create a record of its proceedings that will be sufficient to permit appellate review in this case. The court further held that Rule 3708(A) and other similar rules impermissibly conflict with Section 34-8A-6(B) to the extent that the rules condition the creation of this record on a party’s request. The court directed its committee for the Rules of Civil Procedure for the State Courts to correct the rules in conformance with its opinion. Finally, the court reversed and remanded this matter to the metropolitan court for a new trial.

State v. Amador

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Citation: 2024-NMSC-006

Opinion Date: February 19, 2024

Judge: VIGIL

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

The case involves Rudolph Amador, who was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse. The charges stemmed from allegations that Amador sexually abused his friend's eleven-year-old daughter. After the initial trial, the district court ordered a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court denied Amador's argument that the retrial was barred. Amador was retried and convicted on all three counts.

Amador appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the retrial was barred by double jeopardy and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals rejected Amador's arguments and affirmed his convictions. Amador then petitioned for a writ of certiorari on both issues to the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico.

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that Amador's second trial was barred by double jeopardy under Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. The court found that the prosecutor's misconduct, which included misrepresenting Amador's conditional discharge as a felony conviction and repeatedly referring to Amador as a pedophile during closing arguments, demonstrated a willful disregard of the resulting mistrial. The court remanded the case to the district court to vacate Amador's convictions and discharge him from any further prosecution in this matter.

State v. Lobato-Rodriguez

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Citation: 2024-NMSC-014

Opinion Date: January 22, 2024

Judge: Zamora

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Isaias Lobato-Rodriguez, who was convicted of second-degree murder. The victim, Connie Lopez, was found dead in a van that had crashed into a fence along a remote stretch of desert highway. The defendant approached law enforcement at the scene and admitted to killing Lopez, claiming he had to do so because she was going to kill him and kidnap and kill his daughter. During the prosecutor's opening statement, he mentioned that the defendant invoked his right to remain silent after his arrest. The defense counsel objected and requested a mistrial, but the district court denied the motion, stating that the isolated comment was unlikely to be a significant factor in the jury’s verdict given the evidence expected at trial.

The Court of Appeals vacated the defendant's conviction, ruling that the prosecutor's comment on the defendant’s failure to speak to police violated his right to remain silent under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that such violation was not harmless error. The Court of Appeals did not analyze the comment in the context of all of the evidence presented at trial but concluded that reversal was required because the defendant’s credibility was crucial since he testified at trial and the element of provocation was at issue.

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. While it agreed that the prosecutor’s comment violated the defendant’s constitutional rights, it concluded that the error was harmless in the context of the trial as a whole. The court reasoned that the prosecutor’s comment did not affect the jury’s verdict because the defendant’s testimony—even if fully credited—could not establish sufficient provocation as a matter of law. The court also noted that the prosecutor’s comment was an isolated remark at the beginning of the trial that, after admonishment by the district court, was not repeated or emphasized. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

State v. Phillips

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Citation: 2024-NMSC-009

Opinion Date: March 4, 2024

Judge: Thomson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Clive Phillips, who was convicted of six counts of aggravated battery and pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter. Phillips had attacked Adrian Carriaga and Alexzandria Buhl, killing Adrian and severely injuring Buhl. Phillips challenged his convictions, arguing that double jeopardy bars the multiple convictions except for one count of battery for attacking Buhl and one count of manslaughter for attacking and killing Carriaga.

The lower courts had mixed rulings. The district court disagreed with Phillips' double jeopardy argument and sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment, suspending seven years. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed some convictions, reversed others, and concluded that the battery and manslaughter convictions violated double jeopardy because a reasonable jury could have found either unitary conduct or distinct acts.

The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico disagreed with the Court of Appeals' application of the presumption of unitary conduct. The court concluded that the manslaughter conviction and the challenged battery convictions were each based on distinct conduct and therefore did not violate Phillips' right against double jeopardy. The court affirmed Phillips' manslaughter conviction and all five of his aggravated battery convictions. The court also clarified that in conducting a double jeopardy analysis for a conviction rendered by a guilty plea, a reviewing court should examine what the record shows about whether a defendant’s acts are distinct rather than what a reasonable jury could have found.

SCS Carbon Transport v. Malloy

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 ND 109

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: TUFTE

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Energy, Oil & Gas Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The case involves SCS Carbon Transport LLC ("Summit") and a group of landowners. Summit plans to construct an interstate pipeline to transport carbon dioxide to sequestration sites in North Dakota and four other states. To determine the appropriate pipeline route, Summit needs to access the landowners' properties. However, the landowners denied Summit permission to enter their lands. Consequently, Summit filed lawsuits against the landowners, seeking a court order confirming its right under North Dakota law to enter the lands to conduct pre-condemnation surveys and examinations. The landowners counterclaimed, arguing that the statute authorizing entry is unconstitutional.

The district courts granted summary judgment to Summit, concluding that the statute does not constitute an unconstitutional per se taking, Summit is a common carrier authorized to exercise eminent domain, and the proposed surveys and examinations are the type of minimally invasive surveys and examinations allowed under the statute. The courts confirmed Summit's right to enter the lands to complete civil, environmental, and archaeological/cultural surveys and examinations, including any necessary geotechnical/soil borings, archaeological/cultural resource surveys and examinations, and including any necessary core or water sampling activities subject to any conditions.

The landowners appealed the judgments and order granting summary judgment, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to them under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and article I, § 16 of the North Dakota Constitution.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court concluded that the landowners have not established a constitutional violation on the face of the entry statute or as applied to them, and the judgments and order do not exceed the scope of the entry statute. The court also found that the district court's judgment does not grant Summit an indefinite or perpetual right of access. The court held that a constitutionally permissible entry may not be longer or more invasive than necessary to complete the examination or survey needed to confirm and minimize the scope of the anticipated taking of private property.

State v. Anderson

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 ND 115

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: TUFTE

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Richard Dean Anderson, Jr., who was stopped by law enforcement for a broken tail light. During the stop, Anderson was questioned about his activities, to which he responded that he had been grocery shopping in West Fargo and was heading home to Hunter, a location more than 35 miles away. The officers found his story suspicious due to the late hour and the lack of visible groceries in the car. They conducted a background check, revealing Anderson's prior drug convictions. Based on this information, the officers called a K-9 unit, which detected drugs in Anderson's vehicle. Anderson was subsequently charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.

Prior to his trial, Anderson moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug investigation. The district court denied his motion, and Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the officers did not expand the scope of the traffic stop until after they discovered Anderson's criminal history. Until that point, the officers were diligently pursuing the mission of the traffic stop. After learning of the drug convictions, the officers shifted their focus to a drug investigation. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and start a new investigation based on the totality of the circumstances, including the late hour, Anderson's vague explanation for his travel, the lack of visible groceries in the car, Anderson's change in demeanor when questioned, and his prior drug convictions.

State v. Sargent

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 ND 121

Opinion Date: June 6, 2024

Judge: BAHR

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case revolves around Richard Sargent, who was charged with 17 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, 17 counts of theft of a firearm, and one count of theft of $500-$1000. The charges were based on evidence obtained during a traffic stop, where law enforcement officers found firearms in a vehicle being towed by Sargent. The stop was initiated based on an anonymous tip and a traffic violation committed by Sargent. Sargent filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop and subsequent search were unlawful.

The District Court of Williams County denied Sargent's motion to suppress the evidence. The court found that the traffic stop was valid due to a traffic violation committed by Sargent. It also ruled that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and call in a K-9 unit, based on Sargent's extreme nervousness, his criminal history, his probation status, and the inconsistencies in his travel plans. The court further held that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement allowed the officers to search the vehicle being towed by Sargent.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court agreed that the traffic stop was valid and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. It also held that the automobile exception permitted the officers to search the towed vehicle. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Sargent's motion to suppress evidence, thereby affirming the lower court's decision.

State v. Studhorse

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2024 ND 110

Opinion Date: May 30, 2024

Judge: TUFTE

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves Howard Studhorse, who was charged with five counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of minors. The charges were based on allegations involving three victims, identified as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 3. After a jury trial, Studhorse was found guilty on all six charges. He appealed, raising several issues including the district court's application of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, and potential violations of his right to remain silent and his protection against double jeopardy.

Studhorse argued that the district court misapplied the North Dakota Rules of Evidence by allowing Jane Doe 3 to testify without taking an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court's discussion with Jane Doe 3 impressed upon her the duty to tell the truth, which complied with the rules. Therefore, this was not an obvious error.

Studhorse also claimed that the State improperly elicited testimony about his silence, implying his guilt. The court found that any error in this regard was harmless and did not require reversal of Studhorse's convictions.

Studhorse further argued that he was convicted of non-cognizable offenses on counts IV and V because the jury instructions did not require that he touched the victims on "sexual or other intimate parts," as required by the statute. The court found that the lack of specificity in the jury instructions did not create a non-cognizable crime.

Studhorse also claimed that his convictions on counts II and V violated his right against double jeopardy. The court found that the jury instructions for counts IV and V permitted a conviction for both counts on the basis of the same conduct, which was an obvious error. Therefore, the court reversed Studhorse's conviction on count V as duplicative to count IV.

Finally, Studhorse argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of counts I and II. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove a sexual act in count I, and reversed Studhorse's conviction on that count. However, the court affirmed the conviction on count II.

State v. Aranda

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Docket: S069641

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: DEHOOG

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The case involves the State of Oregon and Stephen Andrew Aranda. Aranda was charged with first-degree rape and chose to testify in his own defense. The state sought to impeach his testimony with evidence of his prior felony convictions, including two counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree assault. Aranda argued that the court should weigh the probative value of his conviction history against its potential for unfair prejudice before admitting it as evidence. The trial court denied his motion, and Aranda was subsequently convicted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with Aranda's argument and reversed his conviction, holding that due process required the trial court to conduct a balancing test before admitting his prior convictions as impeachment evidence. The state appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon.

The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court. The court held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that due process required a balancing test before admitting a defendant's prior convictions as impeachment evidence. The court found that neither historical practice nor principles of fundamental fairness required such a balancing test. The court noted that while the admission of prior convictions could be prejudicial, it was also highly relevant to a defendant's credibility as a witness. The court concluded that due process did not require a balancing test under Oregon Evidence Code 403 before admitting a defendant's prior convictions as impeachment evidence under Oregon Evidence Code 609.

Commonwealth v. Torsilieri

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Docket: 97 MAP 2022

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: TODD

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, challenged the Chester County Court of Common Pleas' ruling that the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) was unconstitutional. The appellee, George Torsilieri, had been convicted of sexual offenses and was subject to SORNA's registration and notification requirements. Torsilieri argued that SORNA's presumption that individuals who commit sexual offenses pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses was an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption violating due process. He also contended that SORNA's requirements constituted criminal punishment, which served as the basis for various constitutional challenges.

The lower court agreed with Torsilieri, finding that the presumption was not universally true and that the registration and notification requirements were punitive. The court declared Subchapter H of SORNA unconstitutional, and the Commonwealth appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that Torsilieri failed to establish that SORNA's irrebuttable presumption was constitutionally infirm. The court also concluded that Torsilieri failed to demonstrate that SORNA constituted criminal punishment. Therefore, the court rejected Torsilieri's subsidiary constitutional challenges and reinstated his duty to comply with SORNA.

The State v. English

Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Docket: 28206

Opinion Date: June 5, 2024

Judge: JAMES

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Eric English was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, his biological daughter. The victim, who was six or seven years old at the time of the abuse, tested positive for gonorrhea. English and Jamie Stroman, the victim's mother's boyfriend, also underwent STD testing. English tested positive for gonorrhea, while Stroman tested negative. The trial court admitted the STD test reports as evidence under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, despite English's objections.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, arguing that the test reports were admissible under the business records exception and were not testimonial under the United States Supreme Court's holding in Davis v. Washington. English appealed, arguing that the test reports were inadmissible without the testimony of the individuals who performed the tests, citing State v. James.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the lower courts' decisions in part and vacated in part. The court overruled James, stating that it had been abrogated by subsequent decisions interpreting the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The court held that the STD test reports were nontestimonial and did not implicate English's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the reports without requiring the testimony of the individuals who authored the reports. However, the court vacated the court of appeals' holding that the requirements of Rule 803(6) were satisfied, as English did not argue that the reports did not meet these requirements.

State v. Zurawski

Court: Supreme Court of Texas

Docket: 23-0629

Opinion Date: May 31, 2024

Judge: BLAND

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Health Law

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving the State of Texas, Ken Paxton in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas, the Texas Medical Board, and Stephen Brint Carlton in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (collectively, the State) against a group of women and physicians. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Texas's abortion laws, specifically the Human Life Protection Act, which generally prohibits performing an abortion except when a pregnant woman has a life-threatening physical condition that poses a risk of death or serious physical impairment unless an abortion is performed.

The case reached the Supreme Court of Texas as a direct appeal from a temporary injunction issued by the 353rd District Court, Travis County, Texas, which halted the enforcement of Texas's abortion laws in various circumstances. The State contested the injunction, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the State had sovereign immunity, and the current Texas law permitting life-saving abortion was not more limiting than the Texas Constitution permits.

The Supreme Court of Texas held that one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Damla Karsan, had standing to challenge the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Human Life Protection Act against her. The court also concluded that the Declaratory Judgments Act waives the State’s immunity for a claim that a statute violates the state constitution. The court further clarified that under the Human Life Protection Act, a woman with a life-threatening physical condition and her physician have the legal authority to proceed with an abortion to save the woman’s life or major bodily function, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment and with the woman’s informed consent. The court concluded that Dr. Karsan had not demonstrated that the part of the Human Life Protection Act that permits life-saving abortion is narrower than the Texas Constitution allows. As a result, the court vacated the lower court's injunction order.