Criminal Law

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing after Dist. Ct. had sentenced defendant to 48-month term of incarceration on charge of conspiracy to use unauthorized credit and gift card accounts, where record showed that Dist. Ct., in comparing defendant's conduct to Mariel boat people, improperly factored defendant's Cuban national origin into his sentence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. failed to explain how defendant's criminal history both outweighed evidence of his lesser participation in criminal scheme and supported instant upward departure of instant 33 to 41-month sentencing guideline.

In prosecution on charge of willfully interfering with final deportation order arising out of defendant-alien's refusal to comply with order directing him to obtain Polish passport prior to his scheduled deportation, Dist. Ct. did not err in barring defendant from presenting evidence that he did not have requisite intent to violate said order where govt. had failed to enforce prior similar orders, which, according to defendant, gave him impression that he would never be deported. Defendant's proposed evidence was irrelevant to elements of charged offense, which concerned different time frame than actions at issue in proposed evidence, and proposed evidence improperly invited jury to commit jury nullification.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition that challenged her murder conviction on grounds that her confession to said charge was involuntary even though defendant, who was 16-years-old at time she gave confession, had spent 55 hours at police station without pillow or blanket prior to giving said confession. Under applicable deferential standard of review, state court could properly find that defendant's confession was voluntary where she had spoken to her father and youth officer prior to making confession, and where defendant had turned down offer by her father to obtain lawyer and gave initial confession that was unprompted by police.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-guidelines, 36-month term of incarceration on bank fraud charge stemming from scheme in which defendant and her boyfriend stole debit-card information from customers from her nail salon and used that information to make unauthorized ATM withdrawals. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. inadequately considered her argument that term of incarceration, as opposed to home confinement, would work undue hardship on her young daughter, record showed that Dist. Ct. understood defendant’s argument, but rejected it on its merits. Ct. also rejected defendant’s argument that lower sentence was warranted because others in scheme were primary perpetrators, where Ct. found that defendant knew that debit-card information was being trafficked and participated in scheme by stealing information from customers and siphoning money from their bank accounts.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 46-month term of incarceration on charge of illegal reentry into U.S. after having been deported even though defendant asserted that Dist. Ct. had failed to address his contention that his 1985 drug conviction was too old and had overstated seriousness of his charged offense. Record showed that Dist. Ct. specifically addressed and rejected said contention and otherwise provided rationale for its determination as to how much weight should be given to 1985 conviction. Ct. also rejected defendant's claim that his sentence, which was within sentencing guidelines, was unreasonable even though defendant had argued that he was 57-years old and had spent prior 27 years in U.S. without incident.

In prosecution on attempted drug distribution charge, Dist. Ct. erred in allowing confidential informant to testify that he had been instructed to get close to defendant because of possible cocaine trafficking where said evidence was not direct evidence of charged offense, and where said testimony constituted unfair evidence of prior bad acts suggesting propensity to commit charged offense. Error, though, was harmless given strength of other evidence, which consisted of numerous recorded conversations of defendant planning drug deal, as well as defendant's presence at scene of drug buy with money to purchase said drugs. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request to admit portion of arrest video in which defendant claimed that $45,000 found on his person was intended to purchase truck. Ct. rejected defendant's contention that said statement was admissible under rule of completeness or as either excited-utterance or state-of-mind hearsay exceptions.