The Court of Appeals in Lesher v. United States, decided on December 1, 2016, addressed and highlighted legal elements for constructive possession of a controlled substance in affirming the trial court decision. Lesher was found guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (marijuana) (“attempted PWID”) and possession of drug paraphernalia (“PDP”). He argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred by allowing the police officer to testify about the results of a field test. The facts were as follows: pursuant to a valid search warrant the
Read More
Archives for criminal law dc
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
In SURUR v. U. S., decided on November 3, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed A conviction for attempted possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to sell due to ineffective assistance of counsel and mistaken identity. It was alleged that Ms. Surur was the gas station clerk who sold paraphernalia to an undercover officer. In order to succeed on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim; the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. The Court concluded that absent defense counsel’s constitutionally deficient performance by failing to investigate a mistaken-identification defense –
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION: IMMUNITY WHEN REQUIRED: DC CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER
The Court of Appeals in YOUNG v. U.S., decided on July 28, 2016, highlighted and analyzed factual circumstances in which granting immunity to a witness is required by the government. Mr. Young was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute (“PWID”) liquid PCP and was accordingly convicted at trial. Before trial, the defendant’s nephew indicated that if he were granted immunity from criminal prosecution – he would testify that he was the last person who drove the vehicle where the drugs were discovered. The government did not offer immunity and the trial court did not require as such and
Read More
THEFT: RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY: IDENTITY THEFT
This blog outlines statutory elements as well as the penalties enumerated for these offense. THEFT FIRST AND SECOND DEGREES Theft in DC is generally defined as wrongful possession and control over property belonging to others. Specifically, one commits theft by wrongfully obtaining or using property belonging to others with intent to either deprive the owner of a right or the benefit of the property, or to exercise control and appropriate the property for his own use or a third party – still depriving the owner the use of his/her property. Wrongful obtaining and using is statutorily defined as: Taking/exercising dominion
Read More
RECENT COURT OF APPEALS’ DECISION: INEVITABLE DISCOVERY DOCTRINE
In NYIA GORE v. U.S., decided on August 18, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for destruction of property as the trial court should have granted the appellant’s motion to suppression evidence based on 4th Amendment violations. The facts of the case stemmed from a domestic dispute where the appellant’s boyfriend complained of the appellant destroying his property inside a motel room that they shared. Officers responded to the scene and upon questioning the appellant and without express consent of the appellant entered the room searched and recovered destroyed property and consequently charged the appellant. The appellant’s
Read More
CHILD CRUELTY REVERSAL: DOCTRINE OF INHERENT INCREDIBILITY
In DION M. SLATER-EL v. UNITED STATES, decided on July 7, 2016, the DC Court of Appeals reversed a second degree child cruelty case while applying a rather rare and archaic legal doctrine: the doctrine of inherent incredibility. The child cruelty statute specifically provides: A person commits the crime of cruelty to children in the second degree if that person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly . . . [m]altreats a child or engages in conduct which causes a grave risk of bodily injury to a child[.]‖ D.C. Code § 22-1101 (b)(1). The facts of the case gave rise to the doctrine
Read More
DC DUI LAWYER: LEAVING THE SCENE AFTER COLLIDING
The pertinent DC statute addressing driving a motor vehicle while under the influence also addresses leaving the scene of an accident after colliding because often drinking and driving results in accidents. Thus this blog addresses both of these offenses in detail enumerating the statutory/legal elements for both offenses separately. Specifically, the statute criminalizes damage to property as well as damage to an individual and also a domestic animal. That is, any person operating a vehicle that causes “substantial damage” to another property (vehicle) and leaves without either giving assistance or without leaving his name, place or residence, and identifying information
Read More
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSAL: PRIVATE V. PUBLIC: DC UNLAWFUL ENTRY STATUTE
The Court of Appeals in an opinion issued in FREY v. U.S., compared and analyzed the legal difference between unlawful entry upon a “private” property versus a “public” property. In reversing the defendant’s conviction for unlawful entry on May 5, 2016 – the Court held that she had entered a public section of the Library of Congress and thus was entitled to a jury trial warranting reversal. The District of Columbia unlawful entry statute makes a legal distinction between entry upon a private v. public property. Specifically, subsection (a) of the code prohibits unlawful entry into “any private dwelling, building, or
Read More
DC ASSAULT LAWS/PENALTIES: DC CRIMINAL LAWYER
This blog outlines and analyzes the statutory language of the three main DC assault provisions: simple assault, aggravated assault and assault on a police officer. The simple assault statute includes both elements and penalties for assault and stalking as they are consolidated under the same statutory language specifically that a person commits a misdemeanor assault punishable by not more than 180 days imprisonment and/or a $1000.00 fine — if he/she unlawfully assaults or threatens another in a menacing fashion. The felony assault which raises the penalties to 3 years and/or $3000.00 in fines has all the elements of the simple
Read More
BAIL REFORM ACT CONVICTION REVERSED
The Court of Appeals in STERLING P. EVANS v. UNITED STATES, decided on March 17, 2016, reversed a Bail Reform Act violation conviction and remanded the matter for further consideration by the trial court. Evans was arrested and charged with possession and failed to appear for his hearing because he did not correctly remember or recollect the date of his scheduled court appearance. He believed he was due in court two days after the actual day due in court. Bench warrant was issued he was picked up on BRA charge and conviction subject of this appeal. Specifically, Evans testified and
Read More
- «Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- …
- 9
- Next Page»