CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1992

People v. Ramos

Alberto Ramos was convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in 1985. Seven years later, Ramos filed a motion under CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction, alleging the prosecution withheld crucial Rosario and Brady material. The undisclosed documents contained evidence favorable to the defense, including information about the child victim's prior sexual knowledge, masturbation, inconsistencies in her statements, and a discrepancy regarding who picked her up from day-care. The court found that the prosecution failed to disclose these materials and that there was a reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different had they been disclosed. The Supreme Court's order granting Ramos's motion to set aside the conviction and ordering a new trial was unanimously affirmed.

Sexual AbuseChild VictimRosario MaterialBrady MaterialProsecutorial MisconductWithheld EvidenceCPL 440.10 MotionVacate ConvictionNew Trial OrderedWitness Credibility
References
12
Case No. M2014-02125-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2016

State of Tennessee v. Charles Allen McKinney

The defendant, Charles Allen McKinney, was convicted of second-degree murder, child abuse, and child neglect. The trial court merged the child abuse and neglect convictions and sentenced him to a total of twenty-four years. On appeal, McKinney challenged the admission of evidence regarding a prior juvenile court finding of 'severe child abuse' and the sufficiency of evidence for the child abuse and neglect convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the second-degree murder conviction but vacated and remanded the child abuse and child neglect convictions due to the improper admission of the juvenile court's prior finding. The court, however, found the evidence sufficient to support the child abuse and child neglect convictions, if not for the evidentiary error.

Criminal LawSecond-Degree MurderChild AbuseChild NeglectEvidentiary ErrorSufficiency of EvidencePrior AdjudicationHomicideAppellate ProcedureTennessee Law
References
24
Case No. 02-13-00393-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

Rashad Azmi Elqutob v. State

Appellant Rashad Azmi Elqutob appealed his convictions for engaging in organized criminal activity and theft by receiving stolen property, receiving ten- and five-year sentences respectively. His primary arguments concerned the indictment and jury charge using "believing" instead of "knowing" regarding the stolen nature of the property, which he contended voided the indictment and rendered his conviction infirm due to insufficient evidence. Elqutob also argued that the trial court improperly excluded evidence of a witness's prior misdemeanor conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments, finding the indictment was sufficiently clear, the evidence supported the convictions under the correct legal standard, and no egregious harm resulted from the jury charge error. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding the witness's prior conviction.

Criminal activityTheftStolen propertyOrganized crimeJury charge errorIndictment defectSufficiency of evidenceMens reaAppellate reviewTexas law
References
27
Case No. M2002-01303-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2003

John C. Wells, III v. State of Tennessee

The petitioner, John C. Wells, III, appealed the denial of post-conviction relief in Davidson County after being convicted of nine counts of aggravated sexual battery. He contended that the post-conviction judge should have recused herself due to prior involvement as a Deputy District Attorney General, and that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The petitioner also alleged numerous constitutional errors and cumulative errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction court, finding no material distinction with prior recusal cases and deeming the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors to be without merit.

Post-conviction reliefAggravated sexual batteryRecusal of judgeIneffective assistance of counselAppellate reviewJudicial impartialityCriminal procedureConstitutional lawTrial strategyChild abuse cases
References
27
Case No. 01C01-9606-CC-00236
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1998

State v. Pat Bondurant (Death Penalty)

Pat Bondurant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and arson. The jury found aggravating factors, including a prior violent felony conviction and that the murder involved torture or depravity of mind, leading to a death sentence. Bondurant appealed, raising numerous issues concerning jury selection, pre-trial publicity, counsel's effectiveness, sufficiency of evidence, marital privilege, prior criminal acts, and the constitutionality of the death penalty. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and the death sentence, finding no reversible error and concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings, and the sentence was not arbitrary or disproportionate.

MurderArsonFirst-degree murderCapital punishmentDeath penaltyPremeditationDeliberationCircumstantial evidenceJury selection irregularitiesIneffective assistance of counsel
References
176
Case No. 03-18-00185-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2019

Charles Edward Smith v. State

Appellant Charles Edward Smith was convicted by a jury of burglary of a habitation and sentenced to twenty-five years' confinement as a habitual offender. On appeal, Smith challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence of prior bad acts, and the alleged lack of proper notice for habitual offender sentencing. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, noting that circumstantial evidence, motive, and opportunity linked Smith to the crime. The court also determined that Smith failed to preserve his complaints regarding the prior bad acts and the habitual offender sentencing for appellate review. The judgment of conviction was affirmed, with a modification to correct a clerical error in the 'Statute for Offense' designation.

Burglary of HabitationHabitual Offender SentencingSufficiency of EvidencePrior Bad Acts EvidenceAppellate ProcedureCriminal Due ProcessTexas Criminal LawEvidentiary ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceFelony Conviction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Kamp

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Otsego County, convicting them of six counts of criminal sexual act in the third degree involving a 16-year-old victim. The appeal challenged the court's Molineux ruling, which allowed evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The appellate court found the evidence relevant for providing background on the relationship and contextualizing the victim's delayed reporting. The defendant also argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, but the appellate court upheld the jury's credibility findings. Finally, the defendant's arguments regarding sentencing adjournments were not preserved, and the sentence was deemed not harsh or excessive, considering the exploitation of trust.

Criminal LawSexual OffensesCriminal Sexual ActThird DegreeAppealEvidentiary RulingMolineux RulePrior Uncharged ConductChild VictimWitness Testimony
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bradley

This case concerns the appeal of a defendant, Bradley, convicted of first-degree manslaughter, who claimed self-defense against her estranged boyfriend, Joseph Wilburn. She argued that her actions were influenced by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and battered woman syndrome (BWS), stemming from a history of abuse. The prosecution introduced evidence of a prior uncharged incident where the defendant had stabbed an unidentified man in the thigh. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the admission of the prior stabbing incident was an error. The Court found this "Molineux" evidence lacked sufficient probative value to disprove the defendant's specific state of mind regarding justification, and its prejudicial effect, suggesting a propensity for violence, outweighed its relevance. The lack of context for the prior stabbing made it unreliable for inferring motivation in the current case.

ManslaughterSelf-defenseBattered Woman SyndromePTSDMolineux EvidencePrior Bad ActsPropensity EvidencePrejudicial ErrorReversalNew Trial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1978

People v. Murray

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered a judgment on November 3, 1978, convicting the defendant-appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which led to an appeal. The defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance during pretrial proceedings but subsequently returned and entered a guilty plea. Initial discussions regarding a plea for a one-year minimum sentence were deemed conditional and non-binding due to the defendant's abscondence. The defendant ultimately entered a plea with the understanding of a three-year minimum sentence, with a provision for withdrawal if the probation report suggested a harsher punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, highlighting the defendant's prior arrests for drug-related offenses and emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial rules against flouting court directives.

Criminal LawPlea BargainAbscondingControlled SubstanceAppellate ReviewSentencingJudicial DiscretionWithdrawal of PleaProbation ReportBronx County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,112 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational