State v. Thompson
A search of a car and a home in which the police
found 600 pounds of marijuana was proper, even though it
began before the time that the judge who issued the search
warrant wrote on the warrant, as there was sufficient
evidence presented to show that the judge had written the
wrong time on the warrant.
State v. Solomon
The criminal trial judge properly admitted evidence
of the defendant’s prior assault conviction because the
defendant had attempted to portray himself as a peaceful,
nonviolent man.
State v. Samms There
was sufficient evidence for a jury in a criminal case to
convict the defendant of stalking as he would
intentionally change his path while walking at the beach
to approach them, he would maintain eye contact, glare and
stare at the victims, and he approached their car.
State v. Reilly
Inconsistent testimony by police officers at a
suppression hearing and at trial did not amount to a
constitutional violation that required a mistrial.
It was up to the jury to determine the officers’
credibility given their differing testimony.
State v. Lanasa
In a sexual assault case involving an underage
victim, no special jury instruction was required regarding
the victim’s credibility even though the victim could
have been suspended, disciplined or faced a delinquency
referral if the allegations were proven false.
State v. Lage For a
guilty plea to be properly accepted in a criminal case, it
is not necessary that the defendant realize the likelihood
of immigration consequences from pleading guilty but only
that he understands their possibility.
It is up to the defendant’s criminal attorney,
not the court, to request a conference to discuss the
immigration consequences.
Jason B. v. Cmmr. of Correction
The court properly rejected the petitioner’s
claim that his right to due process in a sexual assault
case was violated when the police flushed away a marijuana
cigarette that the victim claimed he forced her to smoke.
Whether the victim’s, the petitioner’s or
another person’s DNA on the cigarette would not have
established that the victim was lying about whether the
petitioner forced her to smoke the cigarette or about
whether she consented to sex.
Crawley v. Cmmr. of Correction
Even if the petitioner’s criminal defense lawyer
rendered ineffective assistance at trial by failing to
present evidence of drug dependency, the petitioner failed
to demonstrate prejudice because there was no evidence
that his sentences would have been less than actually
imposed had the defense of drug dependency been raised
during his trial for sale of narcotics.
State v. Carter
Evidence that the defendant pointed a gun at a
person was sufficient to convict him of attempt to commit
assault in the first degree even though he subsequently
lowered the gun and turned away.
The law of attempt requires only that a defendant
be shown to have had the intent to cause serious injury at
the time he intentionally took a substantial step toward
committing assault first; it is irrelevant if he later
changed his mind because by then the crime of attempt was
already committed.
State v. Bryan In a
trial for first degree assault, the criminal court
properly refused to instruct the jury on the defense of
others as the evidence showed that at the time of the
stabbing the victim had turned away from the person that
the defendant allegedly was trying to protect.
Britton v. Cmmr. of Correction
The criminal court property determined that no
Miranda warnings were required during police interrogation
of the petitioner because a reasonable person in the
petitioner’s position would not have believed he was in
custody as he accompanied the detectives voluntarily to
the police station, he was not handcuffed or subjected to
force, and he was told repeatedly he was not under arrest
and could leave at any time.
State v. Anwar
In a criminal case for first degree sexual assault
and risk of injury, the court properly allowed laboratory
results into evidence, holding that the results were not
testimonial because they were requested by a medical staff
member rather than by a law enforcement officer and the
report did not have any accusatory information.
State v. White
In light of the
defendant’s superior strength and size, the court in a
rape case was entitled to believe the complainant’s
testimony that she had been overpowered and sexually
assaulted even though she was not visibly injured and her
clothes were not torn
State v. Baker
Although it is the better practice for a criminal
court to ask a defendant if he or she wishes to make a
personal statement before being sentenced for a violation
of probation, the court is not required to ask a defendant
if he or wishes to do so.
State v. Alston
The defendant’s expression of his subjective
beliefs that his court appointed criminal lawyer’s representation
was deficient and that he would not prevail at trial with
his lawyer’s assistance was not evidence that the
defendant’s decision to plead guilty was not voluntary
but merely provided a rational explanation for the
defendant’s plea.
State v. Abreau
The child victim’s testimony that the defendant
touched her intimate parts in a sexual and indecent manner
but that he did not engage in sexual intercourse provided
sufficient evidence for the jury to convict him of risk of
injury to a child despite acquitting him of sexual
assault.
State v. Romanko
The trial court properly denied a request by the
defendant’s criminal attorney to have the defendant, who
had a bad knee due to an accident, perform the heel to toe
and one leg stand DUI field sobriety tests in front of the
jury as an in court demonstration would not have reliably
recreated how the defendant performed the tests on the
night in question.
State v. Mullien
The court properly held in a criminal case for risk
of injury and assault that once the defendant allowed
police officers to enter the defendant’s residence, an
officer had the right to remain at the residence to make
sure that evidence was not destroyed while other officers
applied for a search warrant.
State v. Morgan
In a criminal trial for sexual assault, the
presence of unidentified DNA on the victim’s clothes, in
addition to the defendant’s DNA, does not render the
evidence that this DNA was present irrelevant or
nonprobative.
State v. Johnson
In a criminal case in which the defendant’s
lawyer told the judge before the trial began that the
defendant had previously stated he no longer wanted the
lawyer to represent him and the defendant then told the
judge he was ready to go forward with the lawyer
representing him, the judge did not violate the
defendant’s state and federal right to an attorney of
his choice by not questioning the defendant further about
the issue of representation.
State v. Gene
A jury can reasonably find a defendant guilty of
sexual assault on the basis of the victim’s testimony
alone.
State v. Ciullo
A criminal conviction for unlawful restraint was
reversed because the victim’s running away demonstrated
that there was no restraint.
State v. Burns
In a drunk driving (DUI / DWI) criminal case, no
Miranda warnings, such as the right to remain silent, are
required when a police officer asks a driver suspected of
driving drunk whether he or she will take a breathalyzer
or other blood alcohol test.
At a trial for drunk driving, the driver’s
refusal to take an alcohol test is admissible into
evidence.
State v. Riley
A criminal court’s sentencing of a juvenile to
100 years for murder was upheld on appeal because the
sentencing judge exercised discretion in fashioning the
sentence and was free to consider any mitigating evidence
presented by the juvenile defendant, including evidence
about his age and maturity.
A dissenting opinion argued that US Supreme Court
cases required the judge in juvenile murder cases to take
into account scientific evidence that children’s brains
and maturity levels differ from that of adults.
State v. Rodriguez
In criminal cases, when a witness testifies to loss
of memory, the judge does not have to find that the
witness is lying about the memory loss before the judge
allows a prior inconsistent statement by the witness into
evidence.
State v. James To
accept a guilty plea in a criminal case, a judge must give
the defendant an opportunity to discuss the possible
immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a crime
with the defendant’s criminal defense lawyer if the
judge is made aware that the defendant has not discussed
those immigration consequences with his or her lawyer.
State
v. Rodriguez
The attorney for an illegal alien, who was the
victim of an assault and who committed medical fraud by
using a false identity to obtain medical care after the
assault, was allowed to testify in the criminal case
against his attacker because the attorney’s testimony
would help the jury understand why the illegal alien
testified even though he could face criminal charges for
fraud and would help the jury evaluate the alien’s
credibility.
The alien, who had overstayed his visa, was given
immunity from prosecution for testifying and, as a witness
in a criminal case for assault, was given the opportunity
to become a legal U.S. resident (to get a green card),
pursuant to immigration law.
