US v. Sansone

Court: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Docket: 22-1464

Opinion Date: January 4, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Daniel Paul Sansone, the defendant-appellant, was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, the upper end of the sentencing guideline range. Sansone challenged the procedural integrity and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed his claims.

Sansone had argued that his criminal history score was erroneously inflated due to the inclusion of his juvenile adjudications, asserting that his commitment to the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS) was not a sentence of confinement. The court rejected this argument, noting that prior case law had upheld the inclusion of such adjudications as constituting sentences of confinement.

Sansone also claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that his juvenile adjudications resulted in confinement for at least sixty days, which was necessary for the assignment of criminal history points under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The Court of Appeals found that Sansone could not show a plain error in this regard, as the record was ambiguous and did not allow for a clear determination of the length of his confinement.

Regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, Sansone argued that the sentencing court had overstated the seriousness of his past criminal record and failed to adequately consider his personal history. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the sentencing court had considered all relevant factors, and Sansone's real complaint was about the weight given to certain factors, not their consideration. The court upheld the sentence, affirming the district court's decision.

US v. Claybrooks

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-4426

Opinion Date: January 4, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this case, the defendant, Jahsir Claybrooks, pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen firearm. The probation office determined that at the time of the offense, Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances and under indictment for a felony, making him a "prohibited person" not allowed to possess a firearm. As a result, his sentence was calculated based on this status. Claybrooks challenged this designation, arguing that he was not an unlawful drug user and that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. He also asserted that the district court erred in determining he was under indictment at the time of his offense and in imposing a sentence above the recommended guidelines. Finally, Claybrooks argued that the district court should have conducted an analysis of the firearms statutes at issue in accordance with a recent Supreme Court case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court did not commit reversible error. The court found that the district court correctly determined that Claybrooks was an unlawful user of controlled substances at the time of the offense, the relevant statute was not unconstitutionally vague, and the district court did not err in imposing an above-guidelines sentence. The court also dismissed Claybrooks' argument regarding the need for an analysis of the firearms statutes, as he raised this issue for the first time on appeal.

US v. Gallagher

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Docket: 22-4128

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a foreign service officer and a non-citizen were convicted of conspiring to fraudulently obtain U.S. citizenship for the non-citizen and making false statements in the process. The defendants, Laura Anne Gallagher and Andrey Nikolayevich Kalugin, were married in 2015. They were accused of conspiring to achieve naturalization and proof of citizenship for Kalugin by making false statements and submitting fraudulent documents. The jury found them guilty on all counts. On appeal, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support each defendant’s convictions. However, it found that the jury was allowed to consider a legally inadequate theory on one count and an erroneous evidentiary ruling prevented the defendants from offering certain evidence on the remaining two counts. As a result, the court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

USA v. Diaz Diaz

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Docket: 22-50951

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, International Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered an appeal by Jose Guadalupe Diaz-Diaz and Martin Perez-Marrufo, two members of the Barrio Azteca gang, who were convicted for their involvement in the murders of three people in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico in 2011. The defendants separately appealed their convictions and sentences, specifically questioning whether sufficient evidence existed to support their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country under 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1). Diaz also challenged his aiding-and-abetting convictions and his three consecutive life sentences for his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Perez-Marrufo also challenged an obstruction of justice enhancement imposed at sentencing.

The court held that sufficient evidence existed to support the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country. The court also affirmed the obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement in Perez-Marrufo's case and the sufficiency of the evidence to support Diaz's convictions for aiding and abetting in Salcido's murder. However, the court held that the district court erred in imposing mandatory consecutive life sentences for Diaz's three section 924(j) convictions and remanded the case for resentencing on these counts.

USA v. Pierson

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Docket: 21-3248

Opinion Date: January 4, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

This case involves the appeal of a judgment convicting Byron Pierson of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Pierson contested the decision, arguing that the district court erred by not holding a hearing to determine if he had knowingly and voluntarily waived certain rights when he entered into a proffer agreement with the government. Furthermore, he argued that the court erred by allowing a witness to testify about the investigation that led to his arrest. The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

The case began when an Indianapolis Police Officer responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported that Pierson threatened to "come back and shoot the house up." After learning about Pierson's criminal record and obtaining a description of his car, the officer decided to return to the woman's home later that evening. Upon returning, the officer saw the car described by the woman and initiated a traffic stop. Pierson was in the back seat of the car. When asked to step out of the car, Pierson hesitated and then fled on foot when an attempt was made to handcuff him. During the ensuing chase, officers saw a firearm under Pierson's body, which was later retrieved and used as evidence against him.

Prior to his trial, Pierson had entered into plea negotiations with the government, signing a Proffer Letter that waived certain rights. After admitting possession of the firearm in two proffer sessions, Pierson withdrew his plea and decided to go to trial. Pierson moved to exclude statements he made during these plea negotiations, arguing that he had not knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.

The Court of Appeals found that Pierson failed to provide an evidentiary basis for his assertion that he had not knowingly and voluntarily entered into the proffer agreement. Given the lack of evidence to the contrary, the court did not find it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing, and the proffer waiver was deemed valid. The court also noted that the government never sought to introduce any of Pierson's proffer statements at trial, meaning any potential error in refusing to hold a hearing was harmless.

Additionally, Pierson contended that the district court erred in allowing the government to present evidence about the investigation that led to his arrest. The court found that Pierson had opened the door to this testimony in his opening statement by referencing a complaint made by his ex-girlfriend. The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony, and immediately gave a limiting instruction to the jury on the proper use of this evidence.

Given the strong evidence of Pierson's guilt, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions.

United States v. Grabau

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Docket: 23-1741

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Criminal Law, Internet Law

This case concerns the appeal of Gordon Grabau's sentence for receiving child pornography, with the appellant arguing that the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement because he knowingly distributed child pornography. The United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, maintaining that Grabau, who was a field technician for a technology company and held a bachelor's degree in computer science, demonstrated superior knowledge about how software works. This knowledge, in conjunction with his use of the peer-to-peer file-sharing program BitTorrent and his possession of a large collection of child pornography, was deemed by the court as sufficient evidence that Grabau knowingly distributed child pornography. Therefore, the application of the two-level enhancement was found to be appropriate.

USA V. GONZALEZ-GODINEZ

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 21-50031

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Immigration Law

In the case reviewed, Mario Gonzalez-Godinez was convicted for attempted illegal entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) after being found near a border fence and admitting to being a Mexican citizen without documentation. After his arrest, a Border Patrol agent read him his Miranda rights as well as his immigration-related administrative rights. Gonzalez waived both sets of rights and then confessed to having been smuggled across the border. Gonzalez argued on appeal that the Miranda warning was inadequate and his conviction should be vacated under the corpus delicti doctrine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected both arguments.

Firstly, the court ruled that the Miranda warning was not inadequate despite also warning Gonzalez that the post-arrest interview may be his only chance to seek asylum. While these two warnings may have posed difficult decisions for Gonzalez, the court found them to be neither contradictory nor confusing. The court held that the government did not need to provide further clarification to the Miranda warning.

Secondly, the court held that the corpus delicti doctrine, which requires some evidence to support a confession, did not require vacating Gonzalez's conviction. The court found that sufficient evidence supported Gonzalez’s confession, as he had twice admitted to being a Mexican citizen and his behavior at the border supported his confession. Thus, the court affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction.

USA V. MOTLEY

Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Docket: 21-10296

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

In this case, the defendant, Myron Motley, was convicted and sentenced for his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances—oxycodone and hydrocodone. Motley appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence obtained from two GPS tracking warrants and a wiretap warrant was obtained illegally.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Motley's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the GPS tracking warrants. The court held that Motley had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his opioid prescription records maintained in Nevada's Prescription Monitoring Program database due to the government's long-standing and pervasive regulation of opioids. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment challenge to the GPS tracking warrants failed.

Additionally, the court affirmed the lower court's determination that the wiretap warrant was supported by probable cause and was necessary. The court found that the affidavit supporting the wiretap warrant application contained sufficient evidence establishing probable cause that Motley was engaged in a conspiracy to illegally distribute prescription opioids. The affidavit also contained enough information for the court to reasonably conclude that a wiretap was necessary to identify the full scope of the conspiracy.

The court dismissed Motley's counterarguments, stating that the government's need for a wiretap was not negated simply because it managed to obtain some evidence of a conspiracy without a wiretap. The court explained that the government has a powerful interest in identifying all conspirators and the full scope of the conspiracy. For these reasons, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Bd.

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B323360(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

In the case of Joshua Zamora Gonzales v. California Victim Compensation Board, the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Two affirmed a lower court ruling that upheld the California Victim Compensation Board's denial of compensation to Gonzales. Gonzales was previously convicted of a gang-related shooting but had his convictions overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit due to insufficiency of evidence. Subsequently, he applied for compensation for the time he was wrongfully imprisoned. The Board denied his claim, finding that he failed to prove his factual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. Gonzales then filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, which was denied by the lower court. Upon appeal, the appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding substantial evidence supported the Board's ruling that Gonzales failed to establish his factual innocence.

In re Whitman

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: A157055(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Business Law, Criminal Law, Family Law, Securities Law

In the case of a contested divorce between Quin Whitman and Douglas F. Whitman, the founder of a once successful hedge fund, the Court of Appeal of the State of California ruled on several issues. The court affirmed that Doug failed to prove he retained any separate property interest in the hedge fund at the time of dissolution, despite an initial $300,000 investment of his own separate funds. The court also ruled that the community was not financially responsible for any of the legal fees Doug incurred to defend against criminal charges brought against him for insider trading or the $250,000 fine imposed on him in that case. However, the court erred in holding the community responsible for the $935,000 penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for illegal insider trading. Quin did not demonstrate that the court erred in holding the community responsible for legal fees expended by the hedge fund when it intervened as a third party into these proceedings. The court also concluded that Quin failed to prove her claim that Doug breached his fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the couple’s luxury home. The court concluded that the couple’s entire interest in the hedge fund is community property, subject to equal division. The court also found that Doug's legal expenses incurred in defending against insider trading charges and the $250,000 fine imposed on him were his separate debts.

P. v. Alvarez

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: D080585(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In this appeal, the court considered the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw from a person involved in a car accident, where unconsciousness or unresponsiveness occurred in a hospital about 90 minutes after the incident. The defendant, Francisco Andres Alvarez, was involved in a fatal car accident and was transported to the hospital. He appeared unresponsive approximately 90 minutes after the accident. An officer, suspecting Alvarez was under the influence of alcohol, requested a blood draw without obtaining a warrant. The blood test revealed a 0.05 percent blood alcohol level with the presence of cocaine and THC.

Alvarez moved to suppress the blood testing results, arguing that the officer had ample time to obtain a warrant and that no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless blood draw. The trial court initially granted the motion, but later, following a U.S. Supreme Court decision (Mitchell v. Wisconsin), the court reconsidered and denied the motion, ruling that exigent circumstances permitted a blood test without a warrant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District of the State of California reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The court concluded that no exigent circumstances, as defined in Mitchell v. Wisconsin or Schmerber v. California, allowed a warrantless blood draw in this case. The court found that the officer had ample time to obtain a warrant and no emergency medical interventions were required that would have justified the warrantless blood draw. Furthermore, the court found that the officer did not reasonably and in good faith rely on California's implied consent statute, which allows for a blood draw without a warrant if the driver is unconscious or otherwise incapable of refusal. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Alvarez's motion to suppress the blood test results and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea.

El-Abbadi v. State

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Docket: 364, 2022

Opinion Date: January 2, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In the case of the State of Delaware v. Taha El-Abbadi, El-Abbadi was convicted of Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree for causing the death of three-year-old Julian Cepeda. El-Abbadi appealed his conviction on the basis of two issues: the trial court's refusal to provide jury instructions for lesser-included offenses and the limitation on cross-examination and testimony regarding the victim's mother's past involvement with the Division of Family Services.

The Supreme Court of Delaware upheld the conviction. The court found that the trial court did not err in refusing to provide jury instructions for the lesser-included offenses of Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that would allow the jury to find El-Abbadi not guilty of the Murder by Abuse or Neglect charges and instead guilty of Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide.

The court also found that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination and testimony regarding the victim's mother's past involvement with the Division of Family Services. The Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion of this testimony was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute plain error. The court found that the mother's past involvement was distinct from the facts of the case and the witnesses were questioned about the delay in medical assistance, which was the key point the defense was trying to establish.

The Supreme Court of Delaware, therefore, affirmed El-Abbadi’s conviction of Murder by Abuse or Neglect in the First Degree.

State v. James

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Docket: SCWC-22-0000260

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i, the court ruled on the suppression of text message evidence in a sexual assault prosecution. The defendant, Dylan River James, allegedly admitted to the sexual assault during a text conversation with the alleged victim, who was directed by the police to contact him. The lower court suppressed these text messages, agreeing with James' argument that his rights to self-incrimination and counsel were violated. The lower court reasoned that the alleged victim was acting as a government agent, and thus, James should have been given Miranda warnings.

The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i vacated the lower courts' decisions. The court ruled that James was not in custody at the time of the text exchange, and thus, Miranda warnings were not required under either the federal or state constitutions. The court also ruled that James' right to counsel had not yet been attached, as adversarial judicial criminal proceedings had not yet been initiated.

The court further held that the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) made an error in concluding that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over the lower court's order denying the State's motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court stated that the State's right to appeal from an order granting a defendant’s motion to suppress includes a right to appeal from a related order denying the State’s motion for reconsideration. The case has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

State v. Silva

Court: Supreme Court of Hawaii

Docket: SCWC-21-0000478

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In a case before the Supreme Court of Hawaii, the defendant, Kumulipo Iwa Coyote Sylva, was charged with second-degree murder for killing Eduardo Alejandro Cerezo. Sylva admitted to the killing but asserted the affirmative defense of insanity. In a jury trial, three medical examiners testified regarding Sylva's mental state at the time of the killing. Two of the examiners opined that Sylva lacked capacity due to a mental disease, disorder, or defect, thus excluding criminal responsibility. However, parts of the testimony of one of these examiners were struck by the circuit court. Sylva was ultimately convicted of manslaughter based on extreme mental or emotional disturbance (EMED).

The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that the circuit court erroneously struck parts of the examiner's testimony which should have been admitted to clarify his opinion under Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 704-410(4). The court found that a reasonable juror could have believed the circuit court instructed them to disregard the examiner's entire answer explaining his opinion that Sylva lacked capacity under the legal standard for insanity. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because Sylva's insanity defense turned largely on the medical examiners’ testimonies. Therefore, the court vacated the circuit court’s judgment, conviction, and sentence, as well as the Intermediate Court of Appeal’s judgment on appeal, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.

Skehan v. ISP

Court: Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Docket: 49547

Opinion Date: January 3, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Idaho, Michael W. Skehan appealed a decision affirming the Idaho Central Sex Offender Registry's ruling that he must register as a sex offender in Idaho. Skehan had been convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree in Oregon in 2001 and later moved to Idaho. He argued that the procedures used by the Registry were improper and that he should not be required to register.

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Skehan failed to demonstrate that the Registry's ruling was deficient under Idaho Code section 67-5279(3). The court also found that Skehan failed to preserve several arguments for appeal, offered little rebuttal to the Registry's position, and did not provide a sufficient record to substantiate his claims on appeal.

The court also held that Skehan failed to demonstrate that the Registry's consideration of other information in addition to the Oregon and Idaho statutes was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, the court found that the Registry did not abuse its discretion by not considering whether his Oregon conviction was a misdemeanor or felony. Lastly, the court concluded that the Registry was not required to compare Skehan’s Oregon conviction to Idaho offenses that do not require registration.

The Registry was awarded its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-117.

People v. Devine

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2023 IL 128438

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The defendant, Justin Devine, was convicted in the circuit court of Kane County of nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. He appealed to the appellate court arguing that the State failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court agreed with Devine and reduced his conviction to disorderly conduct. The State appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The key issues before the Supreme Court of Illinois included whether Devine "disseminated" the images when he sent them to himself and whether the victim was identifiable from the images. The court held that Devine did disseminate the images when he texted them from the victim's phone to his own, rejecting the reasoning of the appellate court that Devine did not make the images "more widely known" because he already had knowledge of them. The court reasoned that the statute prohibits dissemination of images, not knowledge of images, and that Devine's act of sending the images to himself was an act of dissemination.

However, the Supreme Court of Illinois agreed with the appellate court that the victim was not identifiable from the images. The images were close-ups of female genitalia and did not contain any distinctive identifiers. The court concluded that the fact the victim was wearing red nail polish on the day she went to the store or that the images were on her phone did not make her identifiable from the images.

Thus, the court affirmed the appellate court's judgment in reducing Devine's conviction to disorderly conduct.

People v. Grayer

Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Citation: 2023 IL 128871

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

During a bench trial, the defendant Santana Grayer was found guilty of attempted vehicular hijacking. On appeal, Grayer argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because he was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the incident. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that evidence of voluntary intoxication is no longer relevant to the issue of intent, as the legislature had removed voluntary intoxication as an affirmative defense. However, it also noted that even if voluntary intoxication remained relevant, the evidence failed to establish that Grayer’s state of intoxication was so extreme that he was unable to form the requisite intent.

On review, the Supreme Court of Illinois also affirmed Grayer’s conviction, but for different reasons. The court clarified that while voluntary intoxication is no longer recognized as an affirmative defense in Illinois, it can still be considered relevant evidence at trials for specific-intent offenses like attempted vehicular hijacking. This is because a defendant's state of voluntary intoxication might affect their mental state, which is a crucial element in specific-intent crimes. However, in this case, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Grayer had the specific intent to commit the offense of attempted vehicular hijacking, despite his state of voluntary intoxication. The court particularly relied on the defendant's behavior during the incident, including his threats to the victim, his refusal to leave the scene, and his actions suggestive of an attempt to take control of the victim's vehicle.

Dickey v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 2

Opinion Date: January 4, 2024

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

This is a criminal appeal of a murder and sexual assault conviction. The appellant, Bryce Edward Dickey, was convicted for the murder and sexual assault of sixteen-year-old Gabrielle Ujlaky. He claimed that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimonies and evidence. The Supreme Court of Nevada, however, disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court found that the trial court's admission of testimony from Dickey's ex-girlfriend, who testified that Dickey choked her during otherwise consensual sex, was not error because it was relevant to Dickey's intent. The court also concluded that the trial court's failure to conduct a complete analysis regarding the qualification of a witness as an expert was harmless. Additionally, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support Dickey's sexual assault conviction, despite Dickey's argument that there was insufficient evidence of forced penetration. The court concluded that the cumulative impact of the identified errors did not warrant reversal since they did not deprive Dickey of a fair trial.

State v. Randolph

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citation: 2023-Ohio-4753

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue concerned whether a landlord or landlord's agent can prohibit a person from entering leased premises, even if that person has received permission from a tenant. The case arose when Antonio Randolph was banned from an apartment complex by the property manager and was then later arrested and charged with criminal trespass after he was discovered in his uncle's apartment at the complex, which his uncle had invited him to. The trial court found Randolph guilty of criminal trespass. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city had to prove that Randolph had entered the premises without privilege, and that his uncle's invitation to the apartment contradicted this.

Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Sixth District's decision. The court held that a landlord or landlord's agent generally may not exclude a person from rented premises such that the excluded person is considered a trespasser when on the premises even if the person received permission to enter the premises from a tenant of the property. The court noted that Ohio law provides that a landlord cedes his or her possessory interests in leased property to the tenant and therefore may not prohibit the tenant from inviting guests onto the property.

However, the court also highlighted that a landlord can maintain control over access to a property if the landlord so desires, provided that this authority is reserved in the lease agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the lease agreement, a tenant may invite onto the property a person whom the landlord has sought to ban from the premises. The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals was affirmed.

State v. Carter

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 S.D. 67

Opinion Date: December 28, 2023

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

In this case from the Supreme Court of South Dakota, the defendant, Matthew Allan Carter, was convicted of first-degree rape of a minor. The victim, referred to as E.W., was the five-year-old daughter of Carter's then-girlfriend, Nycole Morkve. E.W. disclosed to her mother and grandmother that Carter, known as “Daddy Matt," had “licked” her “lady parts.” Medical examination revealed that E.W. had gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted infection, and a subsequent test showed that Carter also had gonorrhea. Additionally, a search of Carter's residence uncovered a hard drive containing videos of child pornography.

On appeal, Carter argued that the trial court erred in its rulings related to evidence, his motion for acquittal, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed these issues and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to view brief clips of the child pornography videos found on Carter's hard drive, as they were relevant to proving Carter's intent and motive. The court also found that the trial court did not err in admitting E.W.'s statements about the abuse, as they were reliable and corroborated by other evidence. Additionally, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Carter orally penetrated E.W. Finally, the court declined to address Carter's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, as the record on that issue was not sufficiently developed.

The court, therefore, affirmed Carter's conviction for first-degree rape.

State V. Richard

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 S.D. 71

Opinion Date: December 28, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In the case brought before the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Elias Richard was convicted of second-degree murder for the shooting death of Vernall Marshall. Richard appealed the decision, arguing that the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of his gang affiliation and in denying his motion for mistrial due to the State’s failure to disclose a forensic report.

On Christmas Eve 2020, Richard, along with several others, confronted Marshall regarding inappropriate text messages Marshall had sent to a minor. Richard was part of a gang known as the Dark Side Family, and the confrontation ended with Marshall being shot twice in the back and left for dead. The court allowed reference to Richard’s gang affiliation to explain his involvement in the incident, which was otherwise unconnected to him.

Richard also sought a mistrial after it was revealed during trial that the State had not disclosed a forensic report. This report contradicted the defense's opening statement claim that shell casings found at the crime scene matched those found at a co-defendant’s apartment. The court, however, denied the motion, deeming the failure to disclose inadvertent and not prejudicial.

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decisions. It concluded that the evidence of Richard’s gang affiliation was relevant to explain his motive for confronting Marshall and did not unfairly prejudice the jury. The court also found that the failure to disclose the forensic report did not materially prejudice Richard's defense, as his primary strategy was to argue that another defendant was the shooter, a theory that was not undermined by the undisclosed report. Therefore, the court held that the circuit court did not err in denying Richard's motion for mistrial.

Ruiz v. The State of Wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Citation: 2023 WY 128

Opinion Date: December 29, 2023

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In this case, appellant Ismael Ruiz sought to appeal the dismissal of his motion for a sentence reduction by the District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, arguing that the court had erred in ruling it did not have jurisdiction over his motion. The Supreme Court, State of Wyoming found that Ruiz had filed his motion for sentence reduction beyond the one-year deadline stipulated by Wyoming Rule of Criminal Procedure (W.R.Cr.P.) 35(b). Therefore, the District Court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the motion. As a result, the Supreme Court, State of Wyoming also lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismissed it. The details of the case involve Ruiz's 2018 conviction for aggravated assault and battery, for which he was sentenced to seven to ten years in prison but placed on supervised probation for five years. After violating his probation in 2019, the original prison sentence was imposed. Ruiz attempted multiple times to have his sentence reduced or his conviction overturned, with all motions being dismissed by the District Court due to untimeliness or lack of jurisdiction.