7 results for 'cat:"Confrontation" AND cat:"Drug Offender"'.
J. Brennan finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of drug trafficking after denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered in a search of his garbage, which found cocaine residue on a pair of gloves and supported a full search of his house. Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the garbage found in cans on the street awaiting trash pickup. Further, he had no right to confront the state's confidential source whose voice is heard during the controlled buy video. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Brennan, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 23-1615, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender, Search
J. Brody finds that defendant's confrontation right was not violated by the admission of testimony from a detective about data that the FBI obtained by extracting it from defendant's cell phone. The detective's personal knowledge and experience of cell phone extractions was sufficient to support his testimony and independent conclusions about the extraction file. Affirmed.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Brody, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 49079, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender
J. McKinnon finds that the trial court properly admitted hearsay statements that defendant's stepdaughter made to a doctor about the cause of her injuries, as they were made to a medical provider for the primary purpose of medical care and were nontestimonial. However, the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements she made to a sexual assault nurse examiner that were testimonial because they were made as part of a police investigation, but the error was harmless because the statements were identical to other admissible evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: DA 21-0587, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender, Sex Offender
J. Weissmann finds the trial court properly convicted defendant of selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant. Under state law, criminal defendants have no right to confront confidential informants, and evidence indicates defendant approached the informant twice to purchase meth. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Weissman , Filed On: October 10, 2023, Case #: 23A-CR-87, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender
J. Logue finds the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to disclose the identity of a confidential informant in his pending prosecution for selling heroin, charges which were brought against him after he sold heroin to the confidential informant while the latter was wearing audio and video recording equipment on behalf of law enforcement. Because clearly established law requires disclosing a confidential informant if it is essential to the accused's defense, particularly if the accusations involve selling drugs directly to the informant, the trial court properly ordered the informant's identity disclosed. The state's petition for certiorari challenging the trial court's order is denied.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Logue, Filed On: September 6, 2023, Case #: 23-0208, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender, Due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Watkins finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's conviction for sale of a controlled substance. Defendant's counsel was not deficient for failing to object to the admission of a phone call in which a third party said defendant would sell meth to an informant. Objecting to the evidence on confrontation clause grounds would have been meritless because statements to an informant are nontestimonial in nature. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Watkins, Filed On: August 10, 2023, Case #: A23A0927, Categories: confrontation, drug Offender, Ineffective Assistance
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's denial of defendant's post-conviction motion in part seeking a new trial on the basis that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses at his trial on charges of selling methamphetamine was violated by harmful hearsay testimony elicited by the state. Though the circuit court may have erred in allowing the state to elicit testimony from one police officer ostensibly to establish the state of mind of another officer who observed defendant selling meth during an unrecorded controlled buy but whose testimony was barred as a discovery sanction, the overwhelming balance of the evidence against defendant means the outcome of his trial would not have been different, so the error was harmless, assuming it occurred. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2018AP002005-CR, Categories: confrontation, Constitution, drug Offender