16 results for 'cat:"Confrontation" AND cat:"Murder"'.
J. Thissen reverses the Court of Appeals' reversal of the defendant's second-degree murder conviction, which was premised on a finding that potential exposure to Covid-19 did not make a witness unavailable for Confrontation Clause purposes and that allowing that witness's prior testimony to be read aloud for the jury without cross-examination was erroneous. While the Court of Appeals was correct as to that issue, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Reversed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Thissen, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: A21-1101, Categories: confrontation, murder, Witnesses
J. Winkler finds the trial court properly granted the prosecution's request to dismiss a black juror during voir dire during defendant's murder trial. Although he was one of only two black individuals on the jury, comments made about flaws in the criminal justice system gave the prosecution a race-neutral justification for the use of a peremptory challenge. Meanwhile, even though the court erroneously admitted a detective's testimony about an interview with the owner of the barber shop where the shooting took place, the error was harmless because the specific evidence about who was in the shop at the time of the murder was established through other witness testimony. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Winkler, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1491, Categories: confrontation, Jury, murder
J. Dato finds that the trial court erred by allowing the state to present hearsay testimony during a murder trial. The state failed to show it diligently tried to locate the witness before it relied on her preliminary hearing testimony, so defendant's murder conviction is reversed. Also, lying in wait and torture murder special circumstances against a co-defendant based on placing the victim in a fire while allegedly alive are supported by sufficient evidence and may be retried. And the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence that defendant was a Satan worshipper, as it had minimal probative value. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Dato, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: D082754, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, murder
J. Procaccini affirms the district court's findings that police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, later convicted of first-degree murder, and that police did not materially misrepresent information in an application for a warrant to search the defendant's residence, along with its denial of the defendant's motion to admit reverse-Spreigl evidence and his request to cross-examine a lead investigator as to whether police had investigated unnamed suspects from a prior shooting. Security footage depicting the defendant having an "animated exchange" with the victim at a bar, monitoring the victim inside the bar, going outside to an idling vehicle and reaching inside, climbing into a car across the street and turning off the headlights, the victim walking toward the car and the victim's subsequent collapse in the street near the car was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for the victim's murder. The district court also did not clearly err in finding that police's description of this interaction as a "confrontation" in their search warrant application was not reckless misrepresentation. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that prior crimes of another person in the car and at the scene were not relevant to this case and in excluding that evidence, since there are few similarities between those crimes and this one, or in denying the request to question the lead investigator, since it properly cited concerns about the risk of creating unfair prejudice or impugning the victim's character and about a lack of relevance. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Procaccini, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: A23-0154, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, murder
J. Gallagher finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to bifurcate his offenses into separate trials because each murder, which occurred days apart and were entirely unrelated, had distinct evidence with no possibility of creating confusion among the jury. Meanwhile, defendant's confrontation rights were not violated when a police officer testified about statements made by a victim and several employees of the convenience store where one of the victims worked. All of the statements were made in the immediate aftermath of the shootings, which allowed them to be admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-337, Categories: Criminal Procedure, confrontation, murder
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. Singas finds that the appellate division properly held that confrontation violations had not occurred in convicting defendant, a nanny, of the stabbing deaths of two children in her care because the admission of "testimonial" autopsy reports and the failure to allow defendant to cross-examine the medical examiner who wrote the reports constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the confession entered in mounting an insanity defense. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Singas, Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: 74, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, murder
J. Gravois finds that defendant was properly convicted as a principal to second degree murder based on the admission of evidence of the content of two 911 calls. In this case, the information relayed to the the 911 operators was necessary to resolve an ongoing emergency of hearing gunshots and people fleeing the scene of the gunshots. The 911 calls were not testimonial because the conversations between the callers and 911 operators were not in formal settings, but in the immediate aftermath of the incident and before the police arrived on the scene. Therefore, the admission of the calls did not violate defendant's right to confrontation. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Gravois, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 23-KA-55, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, murder
J. Bush finds the trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation rights when it admitted into evidence a letter written by the victim about defendant's stalking. Although the letter was testimonial, sufficient evidence in the record showed defendant killed the victim to prevent him from testifying, which allowed for application of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Bush, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 22-3587, Categories: confrontation, Evidence, murder
J. Streeter finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's petition for resentencing for second degree murder after relying on preliminary hearing testimony that established he was the actual shooter. The testimony was admissible because a sentencing court may consider any evidence previously admitted in any prior hearing. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: September 27, 2023, Case #: A165093, Categories: confrontation, murder, Sentencing
J. Colvin finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and other offenses upon retrial. The trial court did not commit any error in admitting into evidence testimony from a witness who testified at defendant's first trial but who died and was therefore unavailable to testify at defendant's second trial. Defendant had an adequate opportunity to develop the witness's testimony at his first trial. The testimony was not inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. The trial court also did not commit any error in admitting the victim's hearsay statements into evidence. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Colvin, Filed On: September 19, 2023, Case #: S23A0530, Categories: confrontation, murder, Witnesses
J. Watkins finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of criminal attempt to commit murder for trying to hire a hit man to kill his wife, her adult son and a family friend. The trial court did not commit a harmful error by excluding evidence pertaining to a pending indictment for computer invasion of privacy, violation of oath and theft by taking against an attorney who was a witness for the state. Although the trial court's ruling violated defendant's right to confrontation, the state showed the error did not contribute to the verdict. The attorney's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Watkins, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: A23A0990, Categories: confrontation, murder
[Consolidated.] J. Pinson finds that the trial court properly convicted defendants of murder and other offenses. The trial court's admission of an edited version of defendant's and co-defendant's recorded out-of-court statement to police did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. The statement was not directly inculpatory of defendant. Although the trial court incorrectly failed to give the jury a limiting instruction, defendant failed to show that the trial outcome was likely impacted by the error. Sufficient evidence was presented to support co-defendant's convictions, including his text messages bragging about the murders and his admission that he was at the scene of the shootings. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Pinson, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: S23A0559, Categories: confrontation, murder
J. Hudson finds that the murder defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of the dying declaration of the murder victim, and that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant had waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel when he began talking to police of his own volition, having had his Miranda rights repeated to him, after requesting counsel. There is also not a reasonable possibility that prior-bad-act evidence significantly affected the jury's verdict, even if it was erroneously admitted. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Hudson, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: A22-0868, Categories: confrontation, Miranda, murder
J. Anderson affirms the defendant's premeditated murder conviction but reverses his second-degree intentional murder conviction. The district court did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation by preventing defense counsel from telling the jury that a testifying codefendant had taken a plea agreement to avoid a mandatory life sentence, and while it may have erred by not identifying the codefendant as an accomplice in jury instructions, the error did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. As the district court's only error, this issue does not adequately support the defendant's cumulative-effect argument. The second-degree murder conviction, however, was entered in error because it is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. Affirmed in part.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Anderson, Filed On: July 19, 2023, Case #: A22-0303, Categories: confrontation, murder, Jury Instructions
J. Chutich affirms the district court's denial of a postconviction relief request brought by a prisoner with outstanding convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. While good cause exists to extend a deadline to file the prisoner's notice of appeal, and thus the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear his case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying the prisoner's claims, which fail on the merits. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: A22-1817, Categories: confrontation, murder, Jurisdiction
J. Thomas finds that the circuit court properly upheld defendant's murder conviction because his right to confront witnesses was not violated by admitting the confession of a non-testifying codefendant. Affirmed.
Court: US Supreme Court, Judge: Thomas, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 22-196, Categories: confrontation, murder