Cases

Fischer, J. *109{¶ 1} In this direct appeal as of right, Tyrone Noling, a capital defendant, has *438appealed from several rulings of the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County relating to his second application for postconviction DNA testing. For the rea

NOTICE The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the Pacific Reporter. Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts: 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Fax: (907) 264-0878 E-mail: corrections@akcourts.gov IN TH

LAMBERT, J. The primary issue we address in this case is whether an autopsy report prepared pursuant to chapter 406, Florida Statutes (2001), is testimonial, hearsay under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States'Constitution. Following a jury trial, Appellant, Luis Rosario, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and first-degree murder of A.S., a four-year-old boy. He argues that his Sixth Amend

MORITZ, Circuit Judge. More than a decade after the crimes occurred, Dale Eaton was tried for and convicted of the kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and murder of Lisa Kimmell. A Wyoming jury sentenced him to death, and he later sought federal habeas relief from his convictions and death sentence. The federal district court agreed that Eaton was entitled to partial relief and vacated

State of Maryland v. Harold Albert Norton, Jr., No. 67, Sept. Term 2014, Opinion by Battaglia, J. CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – FORENSIC REPORTS Inclusion of the language “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” in a Forensic DNA Case Report rendered the Report testimonial within the meaning of Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012), such that its admission into evidence required the testimony of the analyst who had per

BATTAGLIA, J. This case presents us with the question of whether a Forensic DNA Case Report, not executed under the penalty of perjury, but containing the language of “within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty”, was testimonial within the meaning of Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2221, 183 L.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, Defendant-Appellant James M. Cameron (“Cameron”) was convicted of thirteen counts for crimes involving child pornography. Cameron now appeals, challenging various rulings by the district court before and after the trial. The challenged rulings include: (1) the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for insufficiency an

Cypher, J. A jury convicted the defendant of home invasion, robbery, two counts of rape, assault and battery, and indecent assault and battery. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) police testimony that established that the victim had selected the defendant’s photograph from an array was improperly admitted because the victim was never asked at trial to select the photograph she had previously identified, and (2) the testimon

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On this date, the Court considered Plaintiffs John A. Patterson, John Boyt, Janis Fort, Ruby Alsbury, Raymond Bruntmyer, Judy Hensley, and Douglas Kelder's (collectively "Plaintiffs") Motion to Compel (docket no. 28) and Defendants POW/MIA Accounting Agency ("DPAA"), Director of the DPAA Kelly McKeague, the United States Department of Defense ("DOD"), Secretary of Defense James Mattis,

841 A.2d 31 (2004) 154 Md. App. 578 Frederick James MOORE v. STATE of Maryland. No. 1394, Sept. Term, 2002. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. January 28, 2004. *32 Julie M. Kazaks (Albert H. Turkus, Kenneth W. Gideon, W. Bradley Ney, on brief), Washington, DC, for appellant. Diane E. Keller (J.

814 S.W.2d 593 (1991) STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ralph E. DAVIS, Appellant. No. 71694. Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc. July 23, 1991. Rehearing Denied September 10, 1991. *594 Thomas R. Schlesinger, Clayton, for appellant. William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jeffers

995 So.2d 351 (2008) William James DEPARVINE, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross Appellant. No. SC06-155. Supreme Court of Florida. September 29, 2008. Rehearing Denied November 18, 2008. *356 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth

79 P.3d 131 (2003) 103 Hawai`i 38 STATE of Hawai'i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven M. HAUGE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 25239. Supreme Court of Hawaii. November 18, 2003. As Corrected November 26, 2003. *133 Joyce K. Matsumori-Hoshijo, deputy public defender, on the briefs, for defendant-appe

130 F.Supp.2d 201 (2001) Marvin MITCHELL, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BOSTON, Trent Holland, and Robin Demarco, Defendants No. 98-CV-11674-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 26, 2001. *202 *203 *204 Noah N. Rosmarin, Adkins & Kelston,

[Cite as State v. Myers, 2026-Ohio-1303.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2024-CA-58 Appellant : : Trial Court Case No. 1993 CR 0066 v.

Chief Justice ROVIRA delivered the Opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari in People v. Lindsey, 868 P.2d 1085 (Colo.App.1993), to consider whether, in view of this court’s decision in Fishback v. People, 851 P.2d 884 (Colo.1993), the court of appeals erred in holding that the techniques employed to calculate the statistical frequency of a declared match in a Deox-yribonucleic Acid (DNA) t

792 P.2d 945 (1990) 117 Idaho 920 STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Todd HORSLEY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 17605. Supreme Court of Idaho. April 26, 1990. *946 Bruce H. Greene, Sandpoint, for defendant-appellant. Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen. (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-r