Currently Browsing:Conviction Reversed

SC Supreme Court: New Trial in Criminal Sexual Conduct Case, Expert Witness Bolstered Victim’s Credibility

Briggs v. State (No. 2014-000693) The State indicted Briggs for criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and lewd act upon a child. At trial, the victim testified Briggs touched her “private” with his “private” and with his mouth, and the jury watched video of two forensic interviews in which the victim

Read More

SC Supreme Court: Specific Intent to Kill is an Element of Attempted Murder

State v. King (Case No. 2015-001278) In this case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to expand on the Court of Appeals’ analysis below. The Court of Appeals previously reversed King’s attempted murder conviction based on the trial court’s erroneous instruction that attempted murder does not require a specific intent to kill. The Supreme Court notes

Read More

Murder Conviction Reversed Due to Improper Expert Testimony

State v. Robert Prather Prather was convicted of murder based on an incident that took place at the victim’s residence. Prather, the victim, and two other individuals were at the apartment drinking. In the course of events, the victim ended up being beaten and he died from his injuries. Prather denied involvement, and claimed that

Read More

Conviction Reversed Due to Attorney’s Conflict of Interests

Gonzalez v. State Gonzalez filed a PCR action claiming that his trial attorney had a conflict of interests when he represented Gonzalez at trial. The PCR court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court reverses. The nature of the conflict that Gonzalez identifies is as follows: Gonzalez was charged with

Read More

Court of Appeals Reverses Armed Robbery Conviction

State v. Broadnax The trial court allowed Broadnax’s three prior armed robbery convictions to be admitted for impeachment purposes under Rule 609(a)(2). The Court of Appeals reversed Broadnax’s conviction, reasoning that armed robbery is not a crime of dishonesty under Rule 609(a)(2), and therefore the trial court should have analyzed the prior conviction under Rule

Read More

Nav Map