Case Summaries - Decisions Released on February 17, 2012 & January Term Stats

Criminal Case Summaries:

·        People v Engelsen (KA 11-01548) – 4AD reverses the lower court’s decision, which granted D’s motion to dismiss 2 counts of endangering the welfare of the child on the ground that the grand jury evidence was legally insufficient.  4AD notes that a person is guilty of that crime when he acts in a manner that is likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child less than 17-years-old.  Actual harm is not required.  Here, even if the grand jury evidence did not establish that D acted in a manner that was likely to be injurious to the physical welfare of D’s children, the evidence was sufficient to show D acted in a manner that was likely to be injurious to their mental or moral welfare.  4AD notes that Ds conduct was not limited to driving while intoxicated with the children in the car.  Finally, whether D’s intoxication negated his ability to form the requisite intent—“knowingly”—was a question for the jury.

·        People v Hunter (KA 06-03433) – 4AD previously affirmed D’s conviction.  In that decision, it determined that the lower court properly denied D’s suppression motion because he did not have standing to challenge the search of the apartment in which he was arrested.  The Court of Appeals then reversed, holding that the People are required to alert the suppression court that a defendant did not establish standing.  Here, the People did not raise the issue of standing before the suppression court.  Upon remand, 4AD reverses the lower court’s decision denying suppression, finding that the search of the apartment was not justified by the doctrines of hot pursuit or exigent circumstances.

D was involved with a drug deal with an undercover officer.  When another group of officers exited their vehicle to arrest D, he ran into a building and police lost sight of him.  The officers set up a perimeter around the building, and searched all the units except one.  The officer in charge authorized entry into that unit, in which D was found and arrested.  A warrant had not been obtained by the officers.  4AD concluded that hot pursuit did not apply, because there was no “immediate or continuous pursuit” of D from the scene of the crime.  To the contrary, the police did not know what apartment D was hiding in, and entered the apartment as a last resort after searching all the others.  There were also no exigent circumstances.  There was no evidence D had acted violently or had a history of violence.  Because the police established a perimeter around the building with some delay, it was not even clear that D was still inside the building.  In addition, it would not have been burdensome for the police to obtain a warrant on a weekday afternoon.