Justin Bieber Tested Positive for Marijuana, Prescription Drugs During DUI Arrest On January 23rd, teen pop idol Justin Bieber was arrested on DUI charges in Miami while reportedly drag racing. Now, his DUI toxicology report has come back, and the singer has tested positive for marijuana and prescription drugs as well. A urine sample taken while Bieber […]The post Justin Bieber’s DUI Toxicology Report Shows Pills, Weed in Singer’s System appeared first on South Carolina DUI Defense Lawyers | Strom Law Firm, L.L.C..
Justin Bieber’s DUI Toxicology Report Shows Pills, Weed in Singer’s System
↧
↧
Russian Environmental Activist Sentenced to 2 Weeks in Jail – For Swearing
It's a simple and horrifying message from the Russian authorities to the country's civil society: If you don't fall in line, you will be next.
↧
Distaff side death penalty developments in Texas and Arizona
I always find gender differences and disparities quite interesting in the administration of the modern death penalty, and thus these two news stories from two states captured my attention this morning. From Texas via the AP here, "Woman Set to...
↧
The Cell Phone, Divorce and Harassment
--> When Betty Dougia Jasper was “charged by information with harassment” in violation of Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a), she “pleaded not guilty.” Jasper v. State, 2014 WL 265699 (Texas Court of Appeals 2014). The trial judge “found her guilty”, “assessed punishment at 180 days in state jail, suspended the sentence, and placed her on community supervision for one year.” Jasper v. State, supra. In the “one issue” she raised in her appeal, Jasper “argue[d] that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she intended to harass the complainant.” Jasper v. State, supra. The Court of Appeals began its analysis of her argument (which involves facts we will get to) by explaining that [w]e review the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the elements of a criminal offense for which the State has the burden of proof under a single standard of review. Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2013). . . . This standard of review is the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). . . . Pursuant to this standard, evidence is insufficient to support a conviction if, considering all the record evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational fact finder could have found that each essential element of the charged offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v. Virginia, supra; In re Winship, 397 U.S.358 (1970). . . . We can hold evidence to be insufficient under the Jackson standard in two circumstances: (1) the record contains no evidence, or merely a `modicum’ of evidence, probative of an element of the offense, or (2) the evidence conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, supra, 443 U.S. at 314, 318. . . . The sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard gives full play to the responsibility of the fact finder to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts. See Jackson v. Virginia, supra. . . . An appellate court presumes that the fact finder resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict and defers to that resolution, provided that the resolution is rational. See Jackson v. Virginia, supra. In viewing the record, direct and circumstantial evidence are treated equally; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2007). Finally, the `cumulative force’ of all the circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a jury to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Powell v. State, 194 S.W.3d 503 (Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 2006). Jasper v. State, supra. That brings us to the facts that led to Jasper’s being charged with harassment: [Betty] separated from her husband, Tommy Jasper, in 2008. Their divorce was still pending in 2009. Some time after [Betty] and Tommy separated, Tommy and Crystal Graves began dating. Crystal was separated from her husband and in the process of divorcing him. [Betty] also began some kind of sexual relationship with Crystal's husband. Crystal was in her back yard in the evening of June 14, 2009. She saw car headlights pass across her back fence, and walked to the driveway. She saw [Betty] driving her car up the driveway towards her. [Betty] did not stop the car until she was so close Crystal could have touched the hood with her hands. [Betty] extended her middle finger at Crystal and laughed at her. [Betty] then backed out, yelling vulgar names at Crystal. Crystal called the Hardin County Sheriff's office to report what happened. One of the constables issued a no-trespassing notice to [Betty]. Jasper v. State, supra. At Betty’s trial, Crystal testified that Betty had made a number of harassing phone calls to her. Crystal explained that, at some time in the past, she had lost a child during her pregnancy. Crystal testified that [Betty] had called her once, saying `that God wouldn't let me have children because I couldn't even take care of a dog.’ Jasper v. State, supra. The opinion goes on to explain that the incident for which Betty was charged occurred on August 19, 2009. Tommy was living at a hunting camp owned by another person. Crystal was with him. Crystal got a call on her cell phone from an unidentified number. She answered it and heard [Betty] cursing at her and calling her vulgar names. [Betty] told Crystal that Crystal's husband `didn't like fucking [Crystal]. He liked fucking [Betty] better.’ During her testimony [at trial], [Betty] denied intending to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass Crystal. She did, however, admit to calling her `a yeast-infected slut.’ After she ended the phone call, Crystal called the Hardin County Sheriff's Department. Sergeant C. Brewer drove to the hunting camp and talked to Crystal. He then called [Betty]. Sergeant Brewer testified that [Betty] admitted to calling Crystal and `it got ugly and she said that she cursed her, called her ugly names and said -- but she said she knew she was wrong for doing that and she was sorry for it.’ Jasper v. State, supra. And that brings us back to Jasper’s conviction and her argument, on appeal, that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she, in fact, committed that crime. Jasper v. State, supra. The Court of Appeals began its analysis of her argument by explaining that Section 42.07(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Codes provides, `A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, the person ... initiates communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene.’ . . . For the purposes of this statute, obscene means `containing a patently offensive description of or a solicitation to commit an ultimate sex act, including sexual intercourse, masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus, or a description of an excretory function.’ [Texas Penal Code]§ 42.07(b)(3). [Betty] argues there is insufficient evidence to establish she meant to harass Crystal. Jasper v. State, supra. The Court of Appeals also noted that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, in order for a statement to be obscene as defined under the statute, the statement must be `a description of a sexual act,’ as opposed to a `general allegation of sexual activity.’ Pettijohn v. State, 782 S.W.2d 866 (Texas Criminal Appeals 1989). The only statement by [Betty] to satisfy this requirement is [her] statement that Crystal's husband `didn't like fucking [Crystal]. He liked fucking [Betty] better.’ We hold this is sufficient to establish that [Betty] made a comment that was obscene. See Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(1). Jasper v. State, supra. The court then explained that in her brief on appeal, Betty described the phone call to be from `someone from an unknown phone number.’ While the telephone number of the caller was not shown on her cell phone, Crystal testified that she recognized [Betty’s] voice. Sergeant Brewer testified that he called [Betty] later that day and [she] admitted to calling Crystal and that `it got ugly.’ Even [Betty] admitted on the stand that she called Crystal on the date in question but denied saying most of the things Crystal identified. We hold there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that [Betty] initiated communication with Crystal. . . . Jasper v. State, supra. The Court of Appeals then began its analysis of Betty’s almost final argument by noting, “finally,” that Betty denied that she had the requisite intent to harass Crystal. [Betty] argues, `This Court must decide whether this is simply a case of a domestic issue that resulted in heated emotions and not intentional harassment.’ [She] fails to establish, however, how one is exclusive of the other. The statute provides no exceptions for `domestic issues’ or `heated emotions.’ Accordingly, this is not an issue we must decide because it has no bearing on [Betty’s] intent. The statute makes a person criminally responsible for harassment when she `intended, that is, consciously desired, the results of his actions.’ Blount v. State, 961 S.W.2d 282 (Texas Court of Appeals 1997). Intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. Blount v. State, supra. Jasper v. State, supra. The court then found that the evidence establishes that [Betty] had, for a number of months, called Crystal vulgar names in telephone conversations and in person. She continued doing this on August 19, 2009, using obscene language. Crystal testified that [Betty] even called her a vulgar name when [Betty] saw her at the courthouse on the morning of the trial. Considering [Betty’s] repeated efforts to call Crystal vulgar names, including on the day of the trial for her charge of harassment, we hold there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to infer that [Betty] intended to `harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass’ Crystal. Jasper v. State, supra. Finally, the court explained that Betty also argues she was simply `trying to protect her property’ and `warn[ing] [Crystal] to stay off her property.’ [Betty] fails to explain how claims of who a person prefers to have sex with have any bearing on any matters relating to [Betty’s] property. Nevertheless, at best, this was a matter for the trier of fact to resolve. See Jackson v. Virginia, supra. (holding it is `the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts’). Jasper v. State, supra. The court therefore rejected Betty’s arguments and affirmed her conviction for criminal harassment. Jasper v. State, supra.
↧
Hospitalized for a Valium Overdose, Released, Then got a DUI
In Virginia, you can absolutely get a DUI for prescription drugs. The law says that you cannot operate a vehicle while you are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. Prescription drugs certainly can impair your ability to drive safely. Just because they’re legal for you to take does not mean they’re legal for you […]
↧
↧
Idaho State Police Did Not Investigate Breach of Contract Between IDOC and CCA
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE
Teresa Baker
Public Information Officer
Headquarters
700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642
(208) 884-7122
Fax (208) 884-7087
For Immediate Release: 2/5/14 at 8:55 a.m.
MERIDIAN - There have been media accounts that the Idaho State Police has criminally investigated the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and its activities concerning its contract with the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) to operate the Idaho Correctional Center in Boise. Idaho State Police worked with IDOC to determine if the allegations involving the contract with CCA amounted to a violation of Idaho's criminal statutes. It appears, at this time, that CCA's actions were a civil breach of contract and not criminal activity.
The Idaho State Police stand ready to investigate any activity of CCA and its employees should it violate Idaho's state criminal statutes, as appropriate.
-------------
↧
Man Jailed for Helping Real Estate Agents Fraudulently Qualify Borrowers for Loans
Jared Fanning, 35, Potomac, Maryland, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte to 22 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for wire fraud in connection with a scheme to fraudulently obtain mortgages worth approximately $13 million. Judge Messitte also entered an order that Fanning pay restitution and forfeiture of […]
↧
Woman Convicted After 7 Day Jury Trial of Mortgage and Tax Fraud
Melanie Ferreira, 61, Lagrangeville, New York, was found guilty on all counts of a four-count Indictment that charged her with engaging in a series of frauds, which included cheating the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) out of nearly half a million dollars, and perpetrating a bank fraud scheme. The verdict came following a seven-day jury trial […]
↧
Cellphone Thefts Soar In St. Paul
Violent crime in the Twin Cities may have dropped last year, but robberies, specifically phone thefts, skyrocketed in 2013. According to St. Paul police statistics, 258 cellphones were stolen in 2013, which represented a 52 percent increase from the previous year when 170 cellphones were taken. Police say cellphones thefts are often spur of the […]The post Cellphone Thefts Soar In St. Paul appeared first on The Appelman Law Firm Law Blog
↧
↧
OLG Hamm: Männerquote bei Einstellungen in Justizdienst
Bereits im Oktober hatte ich gefragt, ob die Justiz bald eine „Männerquote“ braucht. Nun macht Nordrhein-Westfalen den ersten Schritt: Der Justiz gehen die Männer aus – das bereitet uns große Sorgen, ließen OLG-Präsident Johannes Keders und Manfred Proyer, Leiter der dortigen Generalstaatsanwaltschaft in einem Pressegespräch wissen. Sowohl für den richterlichen als auch für den staatsanwaltschaftlichen […]Original: OLG Hamm: Männerquote bei Einstellungen in Justizdienst
↧
San Diego Criminal Court Process: Why Should You Hire a Lawyer before You Have a Court Date?
If you have been arrested and charged with a criminal offense in San Diego you should have been given a court date for the near future. Typically this date will be for your arraignment. People often make the mistake of waiting to hire an attorney until after their initial court ...The post San Diego Criminal Court Process: Why Should You Hire a Lawyer before You Have a Court Date? appeared first on Law Office of Domenic J. Lombardo.
↧
E.D.Pa.: Grand jury testimony may be considered at the suppression hearing on the question of standing
Grand jury testimony may be considered under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) and 1101(d)(1) at the suppression hearing on the question of standing. United States v. Dollson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13210 (E.D. Pa. February 4, 2014).
Hearsay is admissible in suppression hearings. Parker v. State, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 41 (February 4, 2014).
Defendant consented to pretrial release inspection of his computers, which he did not contest. Instead, he contested only the scope of the consent, which the court found objectively reasonable based on the representations of counsel at the hearing. United States v. Kelly, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS ____ (2d Cir. February 4, 2014).*
NYPD officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant and two others for trespassing in an apartment building when building security called the police to complain of the trespassers, and the group as described was found on the 10th floor. United States v. Bert, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13158 (E.D. N.Y. February 3, 2014).*
↧
Forced Blood Draw In Ohio (What Happens After Missouri v. McNeeley?)
What is the status of Ohio’s forced blood draw law [R.C. 4511.191] following the decision in Missouri v. McNeeley, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3160 (2013).
In Missouri v, McNeely, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a nonconsensual warrantless forced blood draw violates a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The McNeely decision raises some questions for search warrants in OVI cases. Some of the questions [Read the full post. . .]
↧
↧
Senator Rand Paul telling fellow conservatives to focus on criminal justice reform
Regular readers know I have become a huge fan of Senator Rand Paul because he seem eager to highlight that his principled disaffinity for big government extends to modern criminal justice system. In turn, I was excited, but not all...
↧
Online Traffic School
There are many types of different traffic schools and driver improvement programs in Virginia that may be utilized for your traffic or misdemeanor case. In this article, we’ll talk about online traffic schools and whether or not it’s a good option for you to pursue. What is Online Traffic School? Online traffic schools in Virginia […]
↧
Wulff-Prozess: Die Nerven liegen blank
In der Hauptverhandlung gegen den ehemaligen Bundespräsident Christian Wulff und den mitangeklagten Freund David Groenewold liegen die Nerven blank. Der Oberstaatsanwalt Clemens Eimterbäumer versucht mit immer neuen Beweisanträgen das Verfahren in die Länge zu ziehen, wie ein „Konflikt-Staatsanwalt“ sozusagen. Dem Vorsitzenden Richter Frank Rosenow scheint er damit aber ersichtlich auf die Nerven zu gehen. Spätestens […]Original: Wulff-Prozess: Die Nerven liegen blank
↧
W.D.N.C.: Police dog tracking suspect didn't violate Jardines when stumbling upon MJ in a storage building
A police dog was tracking a burglary suspect when they stumbled upon marijuana in a storage building. It was effectively plain view, and the police did not violate Jardines. United States v. Jordan, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184689 (W.D. N.C. December 27, 2013).
Defendant voluntarily consented. He was induced, but it wasn’t unreasonable inducement. United States v. Dietrich, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13620 (D.Neb. January 30, 2014).*
Private security guards running a checkpoint at an apartment building (even one getting some public funds) were not state actors when they stopped defendant and held the car for the police to arrive. United States v. Brooks, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13732 (M.D. Tenn. January 22, 2014).*
↧
↧
Harmless error and 404(B)
This
week, we inched closer to learning whether Carl Morris will get a new trial on charges
of raping his 9-year-old stepdaughter because the State introduced evidence that
he propositioned his adult stepdaughter right after she got married, ejaculated
into a towel after having sex with his wife, and kicked the dog when his wife
would refuse to have sex.
↧
"Justices Asked to Define 'Mentally Retarded' in Death Cases"
The title of this post is the headline of this new article by Marcia Coyle in The National Law Journal previewing the biggest SCOTUS capital case of the current Term. Oral argument in the case is less than a month...
↧
How Can a Party Protect Him or Herself in a Relationship not Recognized by the State
A question as to how parties who are not married in the eyes of the state but who have a committed relationship to each other can protect their status has been much discussed because of the focus on the rights of same sex marriage. Recently, after the federal government advised states that their National Guard […]
↧
