Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A married couple who had served as foster parents were indicted for capital murder in connection with the death of an infant, E.E., who had been placed in their care by the Marshall County Department of Human Resources due to his medical needs and his parents’ inability to care for him. The child, who required a feeding tube and frequent hospitalization, died while in their custody. In July 2024, a Blount County grand jury indicted both individuals for capital murder, and they were denied bail by the Blount Circuit Court after evidentiary hearings.The petitioners each moved for bail, arguing that the State had the burden to present evidence sufficient to show they were not entitled to bail. The State countered that, in capital cases, the indictment itself creates a presumption of guilt for purposes of bail, and the burden shifts to the defendants to overcome this presumption. The Blount Circuit Court agreed with the State, denied bail, and found that the evidence did not overcome the presumption arising from the indictment. The Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently denied habeas petitions challenging the denial of bail.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Alabama reaffirmed the longstanding “presumption rule,” which holds that, in capital cases, an indictment creates a presumption of guilt for purposes of bail, and the defendant must overcome this presumption by presenting sufficient evidence. The Court declined to overturn this rule, citing stare decisis and legislative acquiescence, especially in light of recent constitutional and statutory amendments. The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying bail because the petitioners had not overcome the presumption of guilt, and it denied both petitions for writs of habeas corpus. View "State of Alabama v. Grimes" on Justia Law

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse committed by the defendant against a complainant when she was between the ages of four and ten during visits to the defendant’s home. The complainant testified that the defendant engaged in multiple acts of sexual assault over several years, including threats to her and her family to ensure her silence. After the complainant disclosed the abuse to her mother, law enforcement became involved, which led to the defendant’s indictment on multiple charges, including pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault, felonious sexual assault, and criminal threatening.In Superior Court, the defendant moved for in camera review of the complainant’s counseling records, which the court partially granted. The State successfully moved to allow the complainant to testify by two-way live video feed from outside the defendant’s presence, arguing that testifying in front of the defendant would cause her trauma and render her unavailable. During the trial, the complainant testified remotely. After the State rested, several charges were dismissed or nol prossed by agreement, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant on the remaining counts.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. It held that allowing the complainant to testify remotely, outside the defendant’s presence, violated his confrontation right under Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution as interpreted in State v. Warren. The court found that this right requires a face-to-face, in-person meeting between the accused and the witness. The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for one pattern aggravated felonious sexual assault charge involving sexual intercourse, as the complainant’s testimony did not establish that the acts occurred over the required statutory period. The court reversed the conviction on that charge and remanded the remaining convictions for further proceedings, vacating the trial court’s discovery order in part for additional review in light of a recent precedent. View "State v. Brousseau" on Justia Law

A cardiovascular intensive care nurse was accused of intentionally causing the deaths of several post-operative patients and injuring others by injecting air into their arterial lines during his overnight shifts at a Texas hospital. The incidents occurred between January 2017 and January 2018, and each victim experienced unexpected strokes with a unique pattern of brain injury that was later traced to air embolisms. Evidence presented at trial showed that the defendant was present or nearby during each patient’s medical crisis, often without being assigned to their care. Suspicion arose when these incidents stopped after he was removed from the hospital schedule.A jury in the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County convicted the defendant of capital murder for killing one named victim and at least one of three other named victims in separate criminal transactions, but as part of the same scheme or course of conduct. Based on the jury’s answers to special sentencing issues, the trial court imposed the death penalty. The defendant raised thirteen points of error on direct appeal, arguing issues including jury unanimity, voir dire limitations, admission of extraneous offense evidence, denial of lesser included offense instructions, improper prosecutorial argument, violation of his right against self-incrimination, and the constitutionality and application of Texas’s capital sentencing statute.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case. It held that the jury instructions did not violate state or federal unanimity requirements, the admission of extraneous offense evidence was proper, and the evidence supported the jury’s finding of future dangerousness. The court also rejected constitutional challenges to the Texas death penalty scheme and found no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence of death. View "DAVIS v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, including the petitioner, became involved in a series of drug-related activities centered around a home in Parkersburg, West Virginia. After the petitioner purchased drugs from Tiffany McCune, he became dissatisfied with their quality, leading to several confrontations and exchanges between the parties. The situation escalated when the petitioner returned to the McCune home, forcibly entered, and assaulted Tiffany with a pistol. During the ensuing chaos, Darren Salaam Sr., who was present in the house, was shot in the back and later died from his wounds. The petitioner fled the scene but was later apprehended. Upon arrest, he made racially charged statements, and photographs taken at booking displayed his swastika and Aryan Brotherhood tattoos.The Circuit Court of Wood County presided over the petitioner’s jury trial. The jury convicted him of felony murder, finding that the underlying felony was burglary. The petitioner was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. During the trial, the court admitted evidence of the petitioner’s tattoos and statements, as well as Tiffany McCune’s statements to police and a 9-1-1 call, over the petitioner’s objections on various evidentiary and constitutional grounds. The petitioner’s post-trial motions for acquittal and a new trial—primarily challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the burglary element—were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and the constitutional claims de novo. The court held that the tattoo evidence was relevant to motive and not unfairly prejudicial, Tiffany’s statements were admissible as excited utterances and not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, and the evidence was sufficient to support the felony murder conviction. The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A national trade association representing large online businesses challenged a recently enacted California statute designed to protect minors’ privacy and well-being online. The law imposes specific requirements on businesses whose online services are likely to be accessed by children under eighteen, including obligations regarding data use, age estimation, and restrictions on certain user interface designs known as “dark patterns.” Before the law took effect, the association brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, arguing that several provisions were unconstitutional on First Amendment and vagueness grounds, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement.The district court initially enjoined the entire statute, finding the association was likely to succeed on its facial First Amendment challenge. On the State’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated most of the injunction, affirming only as to a specific requirement regarding Data Protection Impact Assessments and related inseverable provisions, and remanded for the district court to analyze the association’s other facial challenges and the issue of severability under the Supreme Court’s clarified standards in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC. On remand, the district court again enjoined the entire statute and, in the alternative, seven specific provisions.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the association did not meet its burden for a facial challenge to the law’s coverage definition or its age estimation requirement, vacating the injunction as to those. However, the court affirmed the preliminary injunction as to the law’s data use and dark patterns restrictions on vagueness grounds, finding the provisions failed to clearly delineate prohibited conduct. The court vacated the injunction as to the statute’s remainder and remanded for further proceedings on severability. View "NETCHOICE, LLC V. BONTA" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was convicted of two counts of felony murder after setting fire to his estranged girlfriend’s apartment, resulting in the deaths of her two roommates. The relationship between the defendant and his girlfriend was tumultuous, and on the night of the incident, after a series of arguments and threatening communications, the defendant poured gasoline on the apartment couch and set it ablaze. Surveillance footage placed him at the scene, and an arson investigator determined that accelerant had been used. Following his arrest, the defendant was interrogated by police and ultimately confessed to pouring the gasoline but denied intending to kill anyone.In Multnomah County Circuit Court, the defendant moved to suppress statements made during his police interrogation, arguing they were involuntary, and filed a demurrer contending that Oregon’s felony-murder statute, ORS 163.115(1)(b), violated due process by either creating an impermissible presumption regarding the mental state or by imposing strict liability for murder. The trial court denied both motions, finding the confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances and that the statute did not violate due process. The defendant was convicted, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the trial court’s rulings.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed both issues. It held that the trial court did not err in declining to suppress the confession, emphasizing that, under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were voluntary and not the product of coercion or improper inducement. The court further held that Oregon’s felony-murder statute, as previously interpreted in State v. Blair, does not violate the Due Process Clause because it does not create a conclusive presumption regarding mental state or impose unconstitutional strict liability. The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the circuit court. View "State v. Monaco" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine, second or subsequent offense, and received a suspended sentence with three years of supervised probation. Conditions of probation included obeying Department of Corrections rules and completing any treatment required by his probation officer. After seven months, the State filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging that the appellant left required inpatient treatment at Southwest Counseling Service without completing it. The probation officer’s affidavit detailed that he left treatment against staff advice, had missed office visits, continued to use methamphetamine, and had fled from the probation office, resulting in new criminal charges.The District Court of Carbon County held a probation revocation hearing. Although the appellant initially admitted violating probation, he later claimed his attendance at inpatient treatment was voluntary. The court proceeded to an evidentiary hearing, where the probation officer testified about the appellant’s ongoing drug use, failure to attend required evaluations, and his departure from treatment. The court found by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated probation by not completing required treatment, revoked his probation, and imposed the underlying six to ten-year prison sentence, citing willful violations and unsuitability for continued probation. The appellant appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated when the State relied on other uncharged probation violations during the dispositional phase.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case under the plain error standard because the due process argument was not raised below. The court held there was no due process violation, explaining that written notice is required only for the specific alleged probation violation that forms the basis for revocation, not for other conduct considered during the dispositional phase. The court affirmed the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing the prison sentence, finding no clear or unequivocal rule of law was violated. View "Bustos v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated eluding, reckless driving, driving under suspension, and failing to stop at a stop sign, all arising from an incident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Law enforcement responded to a call about a family dispute, with the caller reporting that the defendant was driving a red Toyota Camry. Officers observed the vehicle and identified the defendant as the driver, who then fled at high speed through residential neighborhoods. The defendant later testified that he was not involved, did not own or drive the Camry, and denied fleeing from police.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, presided over the trial. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to exclude statements related to the BOLO alert and the caller’s association of him with the Camry, arguing hearsay and character evidence grounds. The court denied these motions, reasoning that the BOLO and information about the vehicle were relevant to the officers’ actions and not unduly prejudicial. During trial, officers testified about the BOLO and caller’s statements, and defense counsel made a continuing objection referencing Crawford v. Washington. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and the defendant was sentenced with all terms suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The defendant argued that admitting the caller’s statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and constituted inadmissible hearsay. The court held that the defendant had not properly preserved the Confrontation Clause issue for appeal, as he failed to provide sufficient facts or request a determination about whether the caller’s statement was testimonial. Regarding hearsay, the court found that, even if error occurred, it was not prejudicial because the officers’ identification testimony and dash camera videos provided strong, independent evidence of the defendant’s identity. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Clifford" on Justia Law

A substitute teacher employed by a staffing agency regularly worked in a school district where her child was a student. After a dispute arose between her and her child’s teacher, she filed an ethics complaint regarding the teacher’s conduct with the Arkansas Department of Education. Subsequently, the school district informed the staffing agency that she should not substitute at the school during the investigation, and later extended this prohibition to all district schools. She was still able to work at other schools in the county contracted with the agency. The state ultimately found her complaint baseless.She filed suit alleging that the district and two administrators retaliated against her in violation of federal and state law, including the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The Saline County Circuit Court granted her partial summary judgment, finding liability on her claims, and the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The court also issued a permanent injunction preventing the district from barring her employment as a substitute.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that her Rehabilitation Act claim failed because she was not an employee of the district, as required for such claims. For her § 1983 and Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims, the court found she had not established liability against the district or the administrators. Specifically, she did not show that the district acted under an official policy or custom, nor did her speech constitute a matter of public concern protected by the Constitution in the context of a government contractor relationship. The court also vacated the permanent injunction, as no substantive claim survived.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment rulings, the jury’s damages award, and the order granting a permanent injunction, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants. View "BENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GREER" on Justia Law

Twin infants who are eligible for tribal membership were placed in emergency foster care with licensed, non-tribal foster parents after being born with serious medical issues. The county obtained temporary legal custody of the children through a Child in Need of Protection or Services (CHIPS) proceeding, and the children were eventually moved from the foster parents’ home to the home of maternal relatives who are members of the same tribe as the children. The foster parents, after learning of the planned move, sought to intervene permissively in the CHIPS case, filed a third-party custody petition, and moved to stay the placement change, arguing in part that tribal placement preference statutes were unconstitutional.The Minnesota District Court denied the foster parents’ motions to intervene and for a stay, and dismissed the third-party custody petition without considering their constitutional arguments. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It directed the district court to reconsider intervention and third-party custody, and addressed the constitutionality of the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA), finding it constitutional. On remand, the district court again denied intervention and dismissed the third-party custody petition, concluding the foster parents were not proper parties and could not file such petitions in the ongoing CHIPS proceeding.The Minnesota Supreme Court consolidated the appeals. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention, as such intervention was not in the children’s best interests. The court also held that a third-party custody petition is not available in juvenile court CHIPS proceedings and may only be brought as a petition to transfer custody by a party to the action. Because the foster parents were not parties, the court declined to address their constitutional challenges to ICWA and MIFPA, and vacated the Court of Appeals’ discussion of those constitutional issues. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: L.K." on Justia Law