The First Department removed gang, substance-use, and psychiatric probation conditions that had no evidentiary relationship to the defendant’s offense or rehabilitation.
The Superior Court held that later expert reports did not create newly discovered facts under the PCRA when the petitioner had learned the factual basis for his claims from an expert report 15 years earlier.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed two aggravated-murder convictions, holding that abundant evidence allowed the jury to reject both perfect and imperfect self-defense.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed suppression because the objective circumstances did not restrict Hoffman’s movement to the degree associated with formal arrest.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that a knowing failure-to-appear warrant qualified as an interstate detainer, but refused dismissal because the prisoner did not strictly follow the IAD request process.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a Level 3 felony neglect conviction, holding that any error in admitting a diabetic child’s prior hospitalizations was harmless given extensive independent evidence.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that Alcotest 9510 misconduct did not justify withdrawing an OUI admission where overwhelming independent evidence showed intoxication.
The Court of Appeals held that CPL 30.30(6) applies to appeals pending when the 2020 reform took effect, even where the guilty-plea conviction predated the statute.
The Court of Appeals held that CPL 30.30(6) preserves statutory speedy-trial review after a guilty plea but does not prevent a defendant from expressly waiving that review.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a sexual-abuse conviction, clarifying when a defense theory implies fabrication and permits prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated a summary contempt conviction because an offensive courtroom remark did not significantly obstruct or delay the proceeding.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction because evidence permitted the jury to reject perfect and imperfect self-defense, and denied a rule 23B remand because undiscovered violence evidence was not tied to the defendant’s knowledge when he stabbed the victim.
The Utah Court of Appeals vacated a methamphetamine-possession conviction after the jury heard the offense level and a prosecutor inaccurately minimized the likely punishment, errors that could have encouraged conviction in a close constructive-possession case.
The Supreme Court of Guam affirmed Ricky Santos Cruz’s convictions, holding that discrepancies between the indictment’s dates and trial proof did not impair notice or create a double-jeopardy risk.
The Second Department reduced a SORA designation from level three to level two because prosecutors identified no aggravating factor omitted from the risk instrument.
The Second Department held that an attempted-murder defendant was not entitled to a DVSJA resentencing hearing because his submissions did not corroborate domestic abuse at the time of the offense.
The Second Department upheld seizure of a gun seen in plain view after a plate database inquiry on an illegally parked vehicle indicated the plates might be stolen.
The Superior Court held that a summary-appeal litigant had no due-process right to advance notice that a different judge would hear the case when the hearing’s date, time, and place remained unchanged.
The Court of Appeals held that postplea statements did not trigger the narrow Lopez preservation exception because the defendant never moved to withdraw or vacate her plea.
The Court of Appeals held that Penal Law justification may apply when prosecutors prove child endangerment through the defendant’s use of force and ordered a new trial.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It agreed that the instructions and verdict form, read together, did not probably change the verdict under North Carolina’s exacting plain-error standard. On value, the Court rejected a rigid direct-evidence rule: jurors may use common knowledge when property is so ubiquitous that an average juror can determine with high certainty that its value clears the statutory threshold. Evidence that the six-year-ol
The Nevada Supreme Court held that law-of-the-case principles—not jurisdiction—govern a successor judge’s authority to revisit an earlier ruling, and upheld removal of an unlawful plea drop-down.
The Superior Court ordered new appellate counsel after an Anders filing treated direct appeal like PCRA no-merit review and failed to demonstrate an independent examination of the complete record.
The Superior Court reversed a probation revocation because the record did not establish the conditions imposed at sentencing, leaving supervision agents without a proven foundation for the alleged violations.