State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
State v. Rollins Defendant had been shoplifting before the high-speed chase that ended in a fatal crash. Evidence of the shoplifting spree was admissible to explain why defendant was trying so aggressively to evade the officers chasing him. The voluminous and organized nature of the shoplifting expedition explained why defendant was driving in the manner that he was for purposes of the malice element of second-degree murder.
State v. Tyson When defendant’s first trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial, the trial court ordered an immediate re-trial, rejecting defendant’s request for a transcript of the first trial. Although defendant argued he needed the transcript to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the trial court’s ruling – that the prospect of a witness changing his testimony was mere speculation – would apply to any case and makes no determination why defendant has no need for a transcript in this particular case, especially in light of the fact that the state’s case rested entirely on the victim’s identification of defendant as the perpetrator.
State v. Houseright Even though, when testifying about events at the Rosemont Avenue address, victim B.F. testified that she and defendant had sexual intercourse but did not specifically testify as to an act that would constitute a sex offense, B.F. also testified that, preceding each incident of sexual intercourse, defendant digitally penetrated her. This testimony was broad enough to encompass the incident at the Rosemont Avenue address. The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss one of the counts of statutory sex offense.
State v. Williamson Since defendant presented no evidence at trial to rebut the presumption that the firearm used in the robbery was functioning properly, he was not entitled to either an instruction on common law robbery or dismissal of the two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon.
U.S. v. Edmonds A defendant convicted of distribution of crack cocaine for sale of drugs to a confidential informant also can be convicted of conspiracy to traffic crack cocaine, based on his interactions with the confidential informant before he started working as a government agent after his arrest; the 4th Circuit affirms defendant’s convictions and his life sentence.
U.S. v. Jones (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-01-0516, 19 pp.) (Motz, J.) No. 11-4268, May 10, 2012; USDC at Richmond, Va. (Payne, J.) 4th Cir.
Holding: Police in a high-crime area who followed a car with four African-American occupants and out-of-state tags onto private property and blocked the car’s exit, then questioned the driver and asked him to lift his shirt and consent to a pat-down, violated the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the 4th Circuit reverses the district court’s refusal to suppress a firearm and marijuana found by police.
State v. Bettis The offense of driving while impaired only requires that a defendant drive a “vehicle”, not necessarily a “motor vehicle”; therefore, the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury that the vehicle defendant was driving had to be self-propelled.
U.S. v. Laudermilt Police responding to four quick 911 “domestic” calls relating to a couple they knew did not exceed defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when, after arresting defendant and making a protective sweep to locate defendant’s 14-year-old autistic brother, they asked the brother where the reported gun was and he pointed to a rifle in a gun rack; the 4th Circuit reverses the district court order suppressing the firearm.
