Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the appellate division affirming Defendant's conviction for two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, holding that Defendant's first challenge was unreviewable and that there was no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that that the inventory search conducted by the police that recovered the handguns giving rise to his conviction was invalid and that Supreme Court improperly allowed prejudicial testimony at his trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) neither of Defendant's first two arguments provided grounds for reversal; and (2) Defendant's argument that N.Y. Penal Law 265.03(3) is facially unconstitutional under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022), was unpreserved for appeal. View "People v. David" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction for one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, holding that the record did not support the trial court's conclusion that Defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966), when he was handcuffed and questioned by law enforcement officers.On appeal, Defendant argued that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to police while handcuffed and the physical evidence found in his vehicle because the officers failed to read him his Miranda rights prior to questioning him and because he never voluntarily consented to a search of the vehicle. The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) Defendant was in custody and had not received Miranda warnings when he answered questions by the police officers and therefore, Supreme Court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his responses to the officers' questions; and (2) the Miranda violation when Defendant was stopped and handcuffed did not render his later written consent to search his vehicle involuntary. View "People v. Cabrera" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in violation of Cal. Penal Law 265.03, holding that Supreme Court erred in permitting admission of prior bad acts evidence, and the error was not harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S Ct 2111 (2022), rendered facially unconstitutional statute under which he was convicted and that the statute was constitutional as applied on several grounds. The Supreme Court (1) did not reach Defendant's constitutional arguments because they were unpreserved; but (2) held that Supreme Court erred in admitting evidence of alleged prior bad acts evidence under People v. Molineux, 168 NY 264 (1901), and the error was not harmless. View "People v. Telfair" on Justia Law

Officers Timothy Wright and Brett Willey responded to a domestic violence call where they shot and killed Robert Anderson. Anderson’s estate and family sued Wright, Willey, and the County of Lyon under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and Nevada law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted qualified immunity to the officers on the Section 1983 claims.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment excessive force claim because Plaintiffs’ rights were not clearly established. First, it was not obvious that defendants were constitutionally precluded from firing given that they were responding to an active domestic violence situation, lacked the benefit of having time to fully assess the circumstances, and needed to make split-second decisions as they were being charged. Second, Plaintiffs failed to show controlling authorities (or a consensus of persuasive ones) that would have put every reasonable officer on notice that defendants’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. Distinguishing this case from other cases, the panel noted that Anderson was in a narrow hall and rapidly approaching the officers, with no barrier between them. He could have accessed the officers’ weapons at any time or otherwise harmed them. Further, if the officers took the option to retreat to the house’s entryway, they would have left Jennifer Anderson—for whom they had just called an ambulance—alone with her husband or risked injury themselves if Anderson obtained a weapon from somewhere in his home. View "FREDRICK WAID, ET AL V. COUNTY OF LYON, ET AL" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the denial of his successive Section 2255 motion challenging his conviction and accompanying sentence for using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). In his motion, Petitioner argued that his  924(c) conviction was invalid in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The district court denied the motion because it determined that Petitioner’s Section 924(c) conviction rested on the valid predicate crime of murder. The district court further held that its Pinkerton instruction—which permits a jury to convict a defendant of a substantive offense committed by his co-conspirators—did not undermine the validity of the Section 924(c) predicate.   The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that intentional murder under New York law, even when the conviction is based on a Pinkerton theory of liability, qualifies as a crime of violence within the meaning of Section 924(c). Under a Pinkerton theory, the defendant is convicted of the substantive offense—not of conspiring to commit the offense—so he has committed a crime of violence if the substantive offense is a crime of violence. Because Pinkerton does not transform a substantive offense into a conspiracy offense, it does not implicate Davis. View "Gomez v. United States" on Justia Law

Timothy Chischilly gathered five relatives to get something “off his chest.” To the shock of the relatives, Chischilly confessed that he and his girlfriend, defendant-appellee Stacey Yellowhorse, had killed a woman. The relatives told law enforcement about Chischilly’s confession, and the accounts were largely consistent: Chischilly had admitted: he held the woman down while Yellowhorse bludgeoned the woman with a sledgehammer or mallet; and he and Yellowhorse pinned the woman down with nails and a hammer. Authorities later found parts of the woman’s skeletal remains in various locations, including a fire pit next to Chischilly’s house. Despite confessing to the murder, Chischilly pleaded not guilty. That plea led the district court to set Chischilly’s trial after Yellowhorse’s. At Yellowhorse’s upcoming trial, the government wanted Chischilly to testify about what he told his relatives. Because his statements were self-incriminating, however, the government expected Chischilly to invoke the Fifth Amendment if he was called as a witness. So the government asked the district court to allow the relatives to testify at Yellowhorse’s trial about three of Chischilly’s statements. Chischilly's statements would ordinarily constitute inadmissible hearsay; the hearsay exception would apply only if Chischilly's statements harmed his penal interest and had corroboration. The government argued the district court applied the wrong test by assuming that Chischilly’s statements about Yellowhorse’s involvement were not self-inculpatory. Yellowhorse disagreed, adding that the excluded parts were also inadmissible because the court shouldn’t have found corroboration. In the Tenth Circuit's view, the district court’s approach contradicted its precedent. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the admissibility of Chischilly’s statements to his relatives. View "United States v. Yellowhorse" on Justia Law

At Northwest Missouri State University, they must notify an administrator before distributing “non-University publications.” Plaintiff Richard Hershey earns money promoting a vegan lifestyle on college campuses. In September 2015, he visited Northwest Missouri State with a stack of written materials. A student called campus police to report a “suspicious male” who was “attempting to pass something out to . . . students.” About a year later, Northwest Missouri State updated its policy. Nearly five years after he visited, Hershey sued multiple Northwest Missouri State officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to declare the old and new policies unconstitutionally overbroad and to enjoin their enforcement. The district court, for its part, treated the two policies as materially indistinguishable from one another. The main problem, at least in the district court’s eyes, was that neither required “a decision on the proposed speech within a reasonable period of time,” which could have the effect of silencing speakers indefinitely. So it awarded Hershey most of the relief he requested.   The Eighth Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the entry of judgment in Defendants’ favor. The court explained that the procedural safeguards that must accompany prior restraints do not apply to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. No matter the First Amendment theory, Hershey has not shown that the advance-notice requirement has “a substantial number” of unconstitutional applications. It is neither content-based nor an impermissible prior restraint on speech, meaning it can remain in place. View "Richard Hershey v. Dr. John Jasinski" on Justia Law

After hearing a rumor that Cesar Gonzalez had raped a child, and after being encouraged by a close friend to exact revenge, appellants Daniel Gallegos and Gustavo Nunez, Jr., chased Gonzalez and beat him with metal pipes as he lay on the ground. Gallegos then stabbed Gonzalez six times in the back, killing him. A jury convicted Gallegos of first degree murder, and Nunez of assault with a deadly weapon. Both appealed, Gallegos arguing the trial court erred when, in response to a jury question during deliberations, it instructed the jury that in order for provocation to reduce first degree murder to second degree murder, the provocation must come from the victim, not a third party. As a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeal concluded the court’s instruction was correct, and any potential error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence that the murder was premeditated, deliberate, and willful. Gallegos and Nunez also both contended the trial court erred when it declined to dismiss their prior strike convictions under California v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996), and then sentenced them under the Three Strikes law. To this the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling on Gallegos’s motion and therefore affirmed the judgment as to him. As for Nunez, however, the record indicated the court was unaware of the scope of its sentencing discretion; the appellate court therefore remanded the matter so the court could exercise its informed discretion as to whether to dismiss Nunez’s prior strikes. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "California v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __ (2022), individuals charged in California with unlawfully possessing a handgun have contended that their charges and resulting convictions were unconstitutional. They argued, unsuccessfully, that Bruen rendered California’s entire licensing scheme facially unconstitutional, and as a result, it was unconstitutional to punish nonfelons such as them for carrying a firearm in public solely because they did not have a license. Defendants-respondents Jaime Mosqueda and Juanita Mosqueda successfully raised the same contention against their unlawful possession charges by demurrer in the trial court. The Court of Appeal determined defendants had standing to raise the defense by demurrer, but also that Bruen did not render California’s entire licensing scheme or the charges against them unconstitutional. The offending “good cause” requirement was severable from the remainder of the licensing statute, as was the “good moral character” element which, for the sake of argument, presumed to violate the test laid down in Bruen. "Bruen is also not grounds for a facial attack on the discretionary nature of California’s licensing scheme, and it did not invalidate any of the other licensing provisions in [Penal Code] section 26150." The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal, which concluded otherwise. View "California v. Mosqueda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. He contends the trial court erroneously denied his petition at the prima facie stage because the record of conviction shows that jurors were instructed on now-invalid theories of murder and attempted murder at trial.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that a petitioner is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law if, for example, the jury instructions show that jurors were not instructed on any theory of liability affected by Senate Bill 1437’s changes to sections 188 and 189. The court explained that the trial court here correctly concluded that Defenadnt was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. The court instructed jurors on two theories of liability at trial: direct aiding and abetting and conspiracy. If the jury adopted the former theory, Defendant was ineligible for section 1172.6 relief because jurors would have had to conclude that he harbored the intent to kill. Further, under current California law, “conspiracy to commit murder may be based on an agreement to kill ‘“a human being” ’ who is not specifically identified.” That Defendant and his coconspirators did not conspire to kill the victims specifically is not relevant. View "P. v. Allen" on Justia Law