71 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Murder"'.
J. Perry dismisses the state's appeal of the trial court's decision to grant defendant's application for post-conviction relief related to his conviction of murder in 1995. The state asked for an extension and had until Apr. 10, 2024 to file a response, but the state did not do so until Apr. 18, 2024. A ruling on a post-conviction relief application is not appealable, but the state may still file an application for supervisory writs within 30 days of this decision.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Perry, Filed On: May 8, 2024, Case #: KA-24-44, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder
J. Hart finds misjoinder of criminal offenses is reviewed under "plain error" analysis and that, even if a trial court improperly allowed numerous charges to be tried at the same time, it is not a structural error that requires reversal of a defendant's convictions. In this case, while evidence of defendant's drug charges may have persuaded the jury he was inclined to commit crimes, the error was harmless as it pertained to his murder charge because of the overwhelming evidence in support of that charge, including that he went to his backpack to retrieve a gun before he shot the victim following a scuffle. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Supreme Court, Judge: Hart, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2024CO26, Categories: criminal Procedure, Evidence, murder
J. Williamowski finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss for double jeopardy violations. Although his initial convictions for retaliation and attempted murder were vacated on improper venue grounds, the vacatur of those convictions had nothing to do with his criminal culpability and were instead the result of a procedural error that did not implicate his double jeopardy rights. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Williamowski, Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1736, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Double Jeopardy
Per curiam, the court of criminal appeals finds that the lower court improperly convicted and sentenced defendant of capital murder. The prosecutor, during rebuttal closing arguments, made a “direct comment” on defendant’s decision not to testify, and the lower court failed to take “prompt curative action,” which constitutes error. Accordingly, the case is remanded for a new trial. Reversed.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-2022-0546, Categories: criminal Procedure, Fair Trial, 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. McCool finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant for murder, attempted murder and discharging a firearm into an unoccupied vehicle. On appeal, defendant contends that the lower court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal. The court notes that his arguments regarding eyewitness testimony go to the “weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” The case must still be remanded, however, to address a sentencing error. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: McCool, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-2023-0278, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Sentencing
J. Cole finds that the lower court improperly convicted and sentenced defendant of capital murder for the alleged shooting death of a gas station clerk during the course of robbery. Specifically, the state “directly commented” on defendant’s right not to testify, which requires reversal. The state’s comments regarding “the missing gun” occurred during its rebuttal closing argument, and the lower court failed to remedy the prejudice. Reversed.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Cole, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-20-0727, Categories: criminal Procedure, Miranda, murder
J. Lynch finds that decision must be withheld in defendant's appeal from his conviction for murder, attempted murder, and arson, which stemmed from two house fires, because the chief assistant district attorney on the appeal should be disqualified for having acted as the confidential law clerk to the trial judge. The ADA initially took part in the appeal, and thus the entire DA's office is disqualified, and a special prosecutor must be named to handle the appeal.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Lynch, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 112498, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder
J. Waples finds that the trial court improperly granted the state’s motion to modify a condition of probation when imposing that the defendant must complete the Cognitive Self Change (CSC) program. The defendant argues that after his sentencing they changed the CSC program and his probation officer moved to modify the condition for the Risk Reduction Program, but he did not agree to the modification. The plain language of the condition was misinterpreted by the Department of Corrections to require the defendant to participate in CSC or an equivalent program. Therefore, the defendant could move to strike or modify the condition himself before it goes in effect. Reversed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Waples, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 23-AP-140, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Probation
J. Sheehan finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to sever the menacing by stalking charge from his trial on murder charges. The evidence related to the charge was simple and distinct, most of it coming from a single witness, the victim. Additionally, the evidence from the menacing charge was necessary to provide background and motive in the murder case, and so it would have been admissible as "other acts" evidence if separate trials had been conducted, which allowed the court to join all the charges in a single indictment. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Sheehan, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1587, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Menacing
J. Batchelder finds the lower court properly dismissed the inmate's habeas petition as untimely. Although his "new evidence," including a report on coerced confessions and an eyewitness recantation, impeaches the state's evidence against him, it does not prove he is actually innocent of the murder for which he was convicted and cannot be used to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations. Although the evidence could be enough to make a member of a hypothetical jury find the inmate not guilty, that is not the standard that governs habeas petitions, and because the witness who recanted his statement has already changed his story at least three times, the most recent version is unreliable and insufficient to prove actual innocence. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Batchelder, Filed On: April 16, 2024, Case #: 21-2968, Categories: criminal Procedure, Habeas, murder
J. Pitman finds that the trial court properly released defendant, who was charged with murder, without bail because La. C. Cr. P. art. 701 relieves a defendant from his bail obligation on the running of the time period for speedy trial. However, defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated because there is no time limitation on a murder charge, and, in this case, the length of the delay did not prejudice defendant since there was a detainer in Mississippi requiring his transfer to serve an outstanding sentence. Affirmed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Pitman, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 55,609-KA, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Speedy Trial
J. Dowd finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of murder and armed criminal action, and sentenced him to 26 years in prison. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late endorsement of witnesses who examined DNA evidence at the crime scene. Defendant did not object to their testimony or even cross-examine them. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Dowd, Filed On: April 2, 2024, Case #: ED111454, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Witnesses
J. Gallagher finds the juvenile court properly transferred defendant's case to adult court. Although he was only 14 at the time he committed the murders, he had already failed to respond to counseling and interventions, had a violent criminal history and was the principal offender of the crime at issue, which involved shooting two victims in the back without any provocation. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-729, Categories: criminal Procedure, Juvenile Law, murder
J. Poochigian finds that the trial court improperly redesignated defendant's murder conviction as a burglary conviction in response to his resentencing petition, and must redesignate it as an attempted robbery conviction. Robbery, not burglary, was the underlying felony of his felony-murder conviction. Reversed
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Poochigian, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: F086065, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Sentencing
J. Miller finds that defendant was properly convicted of counts including second degree murder and first degree feticide for a drive-by shooting that killed a woman and her unborn child. Defendant's motion for mistrial was correctly denied since he was not prejudiced by a sergeant's testimony about the contents of surveillance video that was inadvertently destroyed. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Miller, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 2023KA0361, Categories: criminal Procedure, Jury, murder
J. Rodriguez finds that the lower court improperly conducted a consolidated trial of two indictments relating to separate criminal transactions without issuing appropriate limiting instructions to the jury. There is no evidence of any connection between the offenses, separated by nearly six months, and consolidation was thus improper. Further, there was a clear risk that the jury was unduly influenced by an impermissible propensity inference due to the consolidation. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 00746, Categories: criminal Procedure, Firearms, murder
J. Gibbons finds that while the government constructively amended defendant's indictment on a murder-for-hire charge when it filed a superseding indictment without required language about death resulting from the crime, defendant's due process rights were not violated. The prosecution repeatedly mentioned the language and its corresponding increase in potential punishments, while defendant made clear throughout the trial he was aware of the crimes with which he was charged. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Gibbons, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 22-1650, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Due Process
J. Minor finds that this case must be remanded for the lower court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the applicant's claim regarding pretrial jail credit. Even though a credit in this case would "not shorten his prison sentence," since he is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole on an attempted murder conviction, the relevant statute requires certification of the time "spent incarcerated pending trial."
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Minor, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: CR-2023-0374, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder
J. McCool finds that the lower court properly convicted and sentenced defendant for capital murder. Contrary to defendant's argument, his second trial did not violate double jeopardy principles. The evidence does not show that the state "intentionally provoked" defendant into moving for a mistrial during the first trial. Also, the court concludes that "Section 9 does not bar retrial of a defendant" under the circumstances. Affirmed.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: McCool, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: CR-21-0199, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder, Double Jeopardy
J. Chutich affirms the district court's denial of the postconviction relief-seeker's petition. The petition's allegations are time-barred by approximately sixteen years, and the petitioner has not raised any exceptions to this time-bar. His allegations, furthermore, are legally insufficient to justify relief. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: A23-0915, Categories: criminal Procedure, 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
J. Petrou vacates the appeals court's previous opinion on order of the California Supreme Court, but again rules that defendant forfeited her right bring a Racial Justice Act claim. Following general appellate forfeiture rules, her claim is barred because she failed to raise it before the trial court entered judgment, in which she was convicted of one count of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Petrou, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: A163074A, Categories: criminal Procedure, murder
J. Thierry finds that the trial court improperly granted defendant a change of venue for his trial on a second degree murder charge after a shooting victim was found dead in his vehicle. Despite the pretrial media coverage of the murder and of defendant's prior homicide conviction that was overturned, he did not show there was "prejudice in the public mind such that a fair trial would be impossible in Acadia Parish." Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Thierry, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: KA-23-456, Categories: criminal Procedure, Fair Trial, murder