State v Miranda

Miranda appealed his child sex abuse and rape convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no discovery violation when victim’s mother was allowed to testify why she divorced Miranda and the state did not file a rule 404 disclosure as the evidence was not about other bad acts and in any event, the underlying facts were disclosed through a police report. It held that admitting victim’s mother’s reasons was error because it had limited probative value as to credibility and went beyond Miranda’s testimony by bringing up domestic violence, drug use and pornography use which is highly inflammatory. However, it held the error was harmless given the evidence was cumulative through Miranda, victim and victim’s mother, the reasons were not central to the state’s case, the district court gave three limiting instructions about the evidence and the reasons evidence was short and limited.

State v Garcia

Garcia appealed his attempted murder and assault convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel because the choice to concede that Garcia assaulted one victim was permissible given Garcia’s admission to police that he punched and kicked that victim and counsel never admitted that Garcia had knowledge the victim was being stabbed and because gang membership evidence was tactically useful to explain why the other attackers changed their stories between police interview and trial and any objection may have been futile as no specific other bad acts were mentioned and any prejudice was outweighed by the relevance to the element of acting in concert. It finally held there was no plain error in not investigating Garcia’s post-conviction dissatisfaction with his trial counsel because Garcia retained the attorney and there was no showing of prejudice as the only action new counsel could take was appeal and that was done here.

State v Wilkinson

Wilkinson appealed his aggravated assault conviction. The panel affirmed. It held that Wilkinson failed to preserve his sufficiency of the evidence argument and held the ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed because any challenge to the dangerous weapon statute for vagueness fails here given Wilkinson repeatedly swung a power drill by the electrical cord and struck victim which is clearly meets the definition in the statutes; there is no duty to seek jury charges on all possible lesser included offenses and the omission here was proper as the omitted offense was not supported by the evidence; and any error in not including a mens rea element in the lesser assault jury charge was harmless as Wilkinson was convicted of felony aggravated assault.

In the interests of B.A. (M.T. v State)

M.T. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held the juvenile court did not error in denying M.T.’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim as she did not present any evidence that she suffered a disabling medical condition. It held the record supported the termination as M.T. is addicted to pain medicine and has failed to start let alone complete treatment and B.A.’s cognitive and behavioral deficits were caused by M.T.’s unfitness, the fact B.A. loves M.T. was outweighed by other evidence and M.T. failed to demonstrate error in the best interests finding.

In the interests of B.A. (R.A. v State)

R.A. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed holding the records supported the finding of unfitness based on R.A.’s failed and missed drug tests and admitted drug use, the best interests finding was supported by the record, evidence R.A. did not fulfil the service plan was sued as evidence in the analysis not a basis to terminate and D.A.’s argument about a witness was inadequately briefed.

State v Adams

Adams appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held the officer who entered Adams’ house without a warrant did not violate eth 4th Amendment because he had an objectively reusable belief Adams was suffering a life-threatening medical emergency based on Adams’ mother’s statement that Adams had ongoing serious health issues and had not called her in four days and usually called every day, the neighbors statements that Adams had not been seen for several days and the officer’s experience in doing welfare checks on older adults and this belief was not negated by the lack of vehicles at the house given evidence of recent repair work in the crawl space including moisture, tools left on the roof and a ladder still on the side of the house.