Criminal Law

In prosecution on charge of unlawful possession of firearm by felon, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss gun seized from him outside his home during execution of search warrant. While defendant alleged that warrant was infirm because affidavit supporting issuance of said warrant contained misleading information and because allegations made by informants were insufficient to establish probable cause, Ct. found that statements made by informants were sufficiently corroborated by police observation so as to establish probable cause for issuance of warrant. Fact that officer failed to indicate that only small quantity of drugs were spotted by informant in defendant's home did not serve to invalidate warrant. Ct. also found that police were reasonable in tasering defendant during execution of warrant where defendant made motions suggesting that he was reaching for weapon.

In prosecution on charge of Medicare fraud arising out of allegations that defendant was placed on hospital's payroll and received salary for merely referring Medicare patients to said hospital, Dist. Ct. did not err in excluding on hearsay grounds comments contained in hospital committee meeting minutes. Substantive use of descriptions of medical services allegedly provided by defendant that were contained in said minutes would violate hearsay rule even though minutes themselves qualified as business-record exception to hearsay rule where: (1) statements contained in said minutes were written by non-testifying physicians; and (2) defendant failed to lay any additional foundation for establishing any other exception to hearsay rule that would cover said statements. Ct. further found that prosecutor did not misstate law during closing arguments by suggesting that jury could convict defendant on charged offense even if portion of hospital's payment to defendant was for legitimate employment purposes.

In prosecution on charge of racketeering, mail and wire fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy to impede IRS, record failed to suggest that defendant was involved in either bribery or kickback scheme so as to support conviction on charge of honest services fraud. However, defendant's convictions as to remaining charges of money/property fraud were still valid since jury would have convicted defendant of said remaining charges where factual basis for honest services charge arose out of allegations that defendant took money from his victims. Remand, though, was required for new sentencing determination without consideration of honest services conviction.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss indictment alleging that defendant violated provisions of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) by failing to notify either Indiana or S. Carolina officials after he moved from Indiana to S. Carolina in 2008. Ct. rejected defendant's claim that application of SORNA's reporting requirements to him constituted ex post facto law since it was enacted after his 1990 sex offence conviction, after Ct. concluded that SORNA targets only conduct undertaken after its enactment, i.e., defendant's failure to report his move. It also rejected defendant's contention that SORNA's reporting requirements effectively increased his punishment for his 1990 conviction.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 63-month term of incarceration on charge of unlawful possession of firearm by felon even though defendant asserted that he was entitled to lower sentence based upon fact that he had provided medical care to terminally ill father and another individual. Defendant's care-giving conduct did not warrant lower sentence based on family circumstances where need for said services had expired by date of sentencing.

Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on charge of alien being in US without authorization after having been removed, where Dist. Ct. failed to provide any explanation for imposing within-guideline range sentence of 46-month term of incarceration. Ct. also noted that Dist. Ct. made no mention of defendant's request for below-guideline sentence based on certain factors in mitigation.