The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ended the use of mandatory life without parole for felony murder cases based on the state constitution’s prohibition against cruel punishment. Finding that Pennsylvania’s constitutional safeguards against cruel punishment offers greater protections than the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Court reasoned that the blanket imposition of mandatory life…
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a trial court must consider mental health attributes at sentencing pursuant to the Eighth Amendment and the Oregon state constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated in relevant part: “We agree with defendant that ORS 131.295 and ORS 131.300 provide that objective societal standard. Through…
“What makes a conviction wrongful? Developments in DNA science have led to a wave of exonerations over the past thirty years, revealing sources of error in the criminal legal process. Innocence organizations proliferated to represent people whose convictions could be overturned by newly discovered evidence. This is vital work for the individuals who are released…
The Washington Appeals Division 2 reversed a conviction involving allegations of an 11-year-old child charged with attempted rape of a child, finding that the state failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the child was capable of committing a criminal sexual act. The court stated in relevant part: “A child of at least 8…
The California Second District Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication and disposition orders related to a felony murder charge, finding that the record lacked substantial evidence that the youth acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court stated in relevant part: “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and measured against Emanuel‘s guidance, the…
The Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court adjudication of second-degree tampering based on insufficient evidence regarding the youth’s requisite culpable mental state. The Court stated in relevant part: “W.M.H. argues the juvenile court erred in finding he committed second-degree tampering because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt W.M.H.…
The Third District Court of Appeal in California vacated a felony murder conviction based on insufficient evidence to support the state’s required “reckless indifference” finding, which must also take into consideration youthfulness at the time of the incident. The court stated in relevant part: “Finally, defendant’s youth also cuts against a finding of reckless indifference. In Moore, supra,…
The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a conviction for theft by receiving stolen property finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the property was stolen. The court stated in relevant part: “Viewing the record, including the habeas corpus testimony about the VIN number check, and drawing all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most…
The Court of Appeals in North Carolina vacated a judgment adjudicating L.K. delinquent for indecent liberties between minors and imposing a Level 1 disposition upon him, based upon the trial court’s failure to state a standard of proof. The court stated in relevant part: “In the case sub judice, our review of the transcripts and…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a juvenile court’s adjudication of reckless burning, holding that a finding of recklessness requires evidence around a young person’s subjective awareness of risk. This case involved a 13-year-old youth who lit a fire on a grassy hill which spread and ended up damaging several homes. At issue was whether…
From the abstract: “Hundreds of thousands of children are brought under the jurisdiction of delinquency courts every year in the United States. Despite the reality that most children engage in delinquent behavior during their adolescence, poor children, children of color, children with disabilities, and children who identify as LGBTQIA+ comprise a disproportionate number of those who become delinquency system-involved. These disparities exist…
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the adjudication finding of the trial court, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the youth intended to damage playground equipment. The Court of Appeals offered the following language in support: “There is an appreciable difference between intentional action—that is, acting with a conscious objective…
This Article is one of the first to explore the racialized impact of the two most controversial and ubiquitous forms of what we call “imputed liability murder.” An analysis of ten years of murder prosecutions in the state of Minnesota reveals that imputed liability murder is anything but a fringe subtype of homicide: an astounding…
