254 results for 'cat:"Jury Instructions"'.
J. Davis finds the district court properly convicted the doctor for unlawful distribution of controlled substances based on sufficient evidence. After the health management company developed concerns about the doctor's inability to maintain patient and medication records, warning him several times, he was terminated and opened a private practice. The DEA launched an investigation into his prescriptions after receiving a tip from a confidential informant, and the ensuing sting operation led to the doctor's arrest. That the prescriptions lacked a legitimate medical purpose is established in that they were issued outside the usual course of professional practice. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Davis , Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 23-30191, Categories: Drug Offender, Fraud, jury Instructions
J. Fox finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of murder and assault. Defendant claims that the lower court improperly failed to instruct the jury on a mental illness defense, but defendant did not bring forward any real evidence that showed he met the criteria for such a defense. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Fox, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: S-23-0154, Categories: Murder, Assault, jury Instructions
J. Snauffer finds that the instructions given to the jury in defendant's sexual abuse case did not create a preferential credibility standard for the complaining witness. One instruction told the jury to be careful when fact-finding on the basis on one witness's testimony and the other told the jury that a conviction may legally be based on one witness's testimony. However, the trial court erred in convicting him for distinct acts of sexual abuse that occurred during the period for which he was also convicted of continuous sexual abuse. Vacated in part.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Snauffer, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: F085895, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender, jury Instructions
J. Hellman finds the trial court properly denied defendant’s request for the less-satisfactory evidence jury instruction. Inconsistency in witness testimony “does not establish that a video existed or that it was reasonably available to the state.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Hellman, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: A177478, Categories: Evidence, jury Instructions
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. Peterson finds that the trial court improperly convicted defendant of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault for hitting the victim with his car after the two argued over whether the victim threw a golf ball at the vehicle. The trial court incorrectly denied defendant's request to instruct the jury on the defense of accident. There was at least some evidence to support the theory that there was no criminal scheme, including evidence that defendant did not intend to hit the victim and rendered immediate aid. The refusal to give the jury instruction could have contributed to the verdict. Defendant may be retried because the evidence was legally sufficient to support his convictions. Reversed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: S24A0036, Categories: Murder, jury Instructions
J. Ellington finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and cruelty to children. The trial court did not commit any error by allowing the state to repeatedly introduce evidence of the victim's previous head injuries without instructing the jury that the parties had agreed that defendant did not cause those injuries. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on prior difficulties between defendant and the 23-month-old victim. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Ellington, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: S24A0139, Categories: Murder, Child Victims, jury Instructions
J. Agee finds the lower court improperly rejected the inmate's request for a new trial on perjury charges. The inmate argued he deserved a new trial because his counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal erroneous jury instructions. The state agrees that counsel was ineffective on this issue and the inmate is entitled to a new trial. Reversed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Agee, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 22-6272, Categories: Habeas, Ineffective Assistance, jury Instructions
J. Wadsworth finds a prosecutor improperly misrepresented blood and witness evidence during closing arguments against defendant, who was accused of the unprovoked stabbing of a teen girl. The prosecutor may have unduly influenced the jury by conflating defendant with a person seen washing blood off, as it was not established in testimony that the person seen was defendant. The prosecutor also alluded to stains on his shirt as being blood, though no evidence submitted indicated the stains were blood. However, evidence of the victim’s identification of the defendant as the person who stabbed her should not be suppressed, as nothing about her statements were influenced by police or compromised her ability to identify him. Vacated.
Court: Hawai'i Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wadsworth, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: CAAP-22-464, Categories: Prosecutorial Misconduct, Assault, jury Instructions
J. Rothschild finds that the trial court improperly gave a deadlocked jury additional guidance on implied malice, resulting in a unanimous decision to convict defendant for second degree murder. Implied malice requires a conscious disregard from human life, not merely a disregard for whether someone is hurt or killed. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Rothschild, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: B328209, Categories: Murder, jury Instructions
J. Wollenberg finds the superior court properly determined that Alaska courts are not constitutionally required to instruct grand juries that they have discretion to decline to enforce the law in a particular case. No case law supports the notion that “the constitution requires the superior court to affirmatively instruct the grand jurors that they have this power—particularly where the grand jury instructions do not expressly foreclose the exercise of this kind of discretion.” Affirmed.
Court: Alaska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Wollenberg, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: A-11759, Categories: jury Instructions
J. Ortego finds that defendant was properly convicted for carjacking and adjudicated as a fourth habitual offender, resulting in a life sentence of hard labor without parole. There was plenty of evidence that defendant attacked the carjacking victim unprovoked, thus there was "violence" and all of the elements of the crime were established beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Ortego, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: KA-23-736, Categories: Robbery, Vehicle, jury Instructions
J. Pagan finds the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction on defense of premises regarding the alleged victim’s actions when defendant was claiming self-defense against someone who used force against him. “The parties disputed the facts that would have made defendant’s self-defense claim viable, and a jury instruction that highlighted the alleged victim’s state of mind” detracted from the jury’s consideration of defendant’s state of mind. Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Pagan, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: A177313, Categories: Burglary, Assault, jury Instructions
J. Matheson finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of attempted enticement of a minor. Defendant claims there was not enough evidence to convict him and that the lower court improperly gave jury instructions related to "grooming." Even if the grooming instruction was removed, the jury still had enough evidence from which to find that defendant was attempting to entice a minor through graphic conversations and making travel arrangements to meet them. Affirmed.
Court: 10th Circuit, Judge: Matheson, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 22-5088, Categories: Child Victims, jury Instructions
J. Yu finds that the lower court properly denied defendant's request for a new trial stemming from his child molestation conviction. Defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial because his legal team did not propose a lesser included offense instruction for fourth-degree assault. Even if his counsel had requested the lesser instructions, they still would have been denied because there was no evidence on the record to support them. Affirmed.
Court: Washington Supreme Court, Judge: Yu, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 100953-4, Categories: Assault, Child Victims, jury Instructions
J. Wilkinson finds the lower court properly convicted the defendant of various crimes related to drug trafficking, including two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. While executing a search warrant of the defendant's apartment, police found a noteworthy collection of drugs and drug paraphernalia: copious quantities of heroin, cocaine and marijuana, in addition to packaging supplies, cutting materials, scales, sifters and blending equipment to go along with six firearms. The defendant disputes a section of jury instructions on the firearm charges, claiming the instruction that he is guilty of using the gun in furtherance if the distribution of drugs and the common sense recognition that drug dealing is a dangerous and violent enterprise may support an inference that the defendant’s possession of a firearm was to facilitate drug dealing. There is no false legal premise in these instructions as the jurors were told that the dangerous and violent nature of drug dealing was “a common sense recognition.” But the jurors were then advised that the province of common sense was fully their own. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Wilkinson, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 23-4222, Categories: Drug Offender, Firearms, jury Instructions
J. Ecker finds the trial court properly instructed the jury and denied defendant’s claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial under the due process clause due to conflicting statements by the prosecutor during cross-examination and rebuttal argument. The defendant fails to establish that the jury instruction was an injustice. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Ecker, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: SC20720, Categories: Robbery, Due Process, jury Instructions
J. Westbrook finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for sexual assault upon a minor under 14 and use of the minor in pornography based on sufficient evidence. Though defendant contends the court improperly instructed the jury that a mistake as to the victim's age is not a defense to a charge of using a minor in pornography, the state is not required to prove the defendant "knowingly" used her. Because defendant admitted he believed the minor was 16 years old during their sexual relationship, the instructional error was harmless. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Court of Appeals, Judge: Westbrook , Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 85868-COA, Categories: Sex Offender, Child Pornography, jury Instructions
J. Pagan finds the trial court plainly erred by not instructing the jury that it must find a culpable mental state for the physical injury element of second-degree assault. The given instruction “did not state that a defendant must knowingly engage in assaultive conduct…[and] must be at least criminally negligent with respect to causing injury.” Reversed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Pagan, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: A177094, Categories: Assault, jury Instructions
J. McKinnon finds that the trial court properly instructed the jury that it could conclude defendant was in actual physical control of his vehicle while intoxicated for the purposes of a DUI count even if he was unconscious. It was also proper to allow the state to rebut a closing argument in which counsel argued the state was dishonest in deciding not to introduce a photo of defendant asleep across the bench seat of his truck. However, the imposition of a $5,000 fine violated the constitutional proportionality requirement since it did not take into account defendant's ability to pay. Reversed in part.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: DA 21-0413, Categories: Sentencing, Dui, jury Instructions