Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B293920
|
People v. Kingston
Trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights by imposing fines without ascertaining ability to pay, since the fines neither interfered with defendant's access to courts nor resulted in her incarceration. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
V. Chaney | Oct. 23, 2019 |
A153473
|
People v. Sanchez
When an action is dismissed by a magistrate on constitutional grounds, the dismissal cannot be reinstated under California Penal Code Section 871.5. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
P. Siggins | Oct. 23, 2019 |
H044349
|
Ruiz-Martinez v. Super. Ct.
Improper dismissal of grand jurors in violation of Penal Code Section 939.5 did not violate the separation of powers doctrine or violate petitioner's due process rights. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
F. Elia | Oct. 22, 2019 |
B288533
|
Modification: People v. Vital
CALCRIM No. 1128 was improper and prejudicial because it did not reflect the minimum age requirement for Penal Code Section 288.7(b) conviction as applying only to the direct perpetrator. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Hanasono | Oct. 21, 2019 |
A156467
|
People v. McCann
There was reasonable cause to believe defendant forcibly penetrated victim against his will when defendant admitted whacking victim, and victim ended up with a broken nose and injuries to rectum. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Miller | Oct. 18, 2019 |
E070345
|
People v. Wehr
Under Proposition 47, the crime of receiving a stolen car valued at no more than $950 under California Penal Code Section 496 must be treated as a misdemeanor. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
F. Menetrez | Oct. 17, 2019 |
G055942
|
People v. Meneses
In sexual assault cases involving minors, jurors may consider charged sex offenses as evidence of a defendant's propensity to commit similar offenses; thus, jury instruction under CALCRIM No.1191B was proper. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Fybel | Oct. 15, 2019 |
14-99012
|
Floyd v. Filson
Petitioner's constitutional rights were not violated by admission of victim's mother's testimony about her son's difficult life and previous experiences with violent crime because testimony did not unduly prejudice petitioner. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Friedland | Oct. 14, 2019 |
H045157
|
People v. Winn
Admission of photograph of victim while alive did not prejudice defendant, nor did trial court's failure to question defendant's counsel after defendant alleged counsel did not consult with him regarding potentially testifying. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Greenwood | Oct. 11, 2019 |
G052967
|
Modification: People v. Mejia
True finding of premeditated and deliberation as an aider and abettor cannot be based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, so that finding must be vacated. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
K. O'Leary | Oct. 10, 2019 |
18-50199
|
U.S. v. Valle
Government could not establish non-citizen's continuous presence in United States since alleged time of reentry without submitting any direct evidence of where non-citizen was for over a decade. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Friedland | Oct. 10, 2019 |
E071122
|
In re O.C.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 781, not Section 786, applied to sealing petition, and the trial court properly denied the petition due to petitioner's felony convictions. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
R. Fields | Oct. 10, 2019 |
D075388
|
People v. Merchant
Under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront an adverse witness is not violated if the defendant coerced a witness or victim from testifying at trial. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
W. Dato | Oct. 10, 2019 |
G052967
|
Modification: People v. Mejia
True finding of premeditated and deliberation as an aider and abettor cannot be based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine, so that finding must be vacated. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
K. O'Leary | Oct. 10, 2019 |
B295310
|
Barajas v. Appellate Division
Application of exclusionary rule at a probable cause hearing under Penal Code Section 991 was not required; Section 1538.5 is the Legislature's codification of the exclusionary rule. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
V. Chaney | Oct. 8, 2019 |
E070042
|
People v. Medrano
Appellant failed by choice or inadvertence to exercise his right to make a record of mitigating youth-related evidence, and remand to allow him to make such a showing was not warranted. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
F. Menetrez | Oct. 8, 2019 |
17-30227
|
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Green
Sentencing court erred by concluding that it could not first hear defendant's allocution before determining whether reduction for acceptance of responsibility was warranted under Sentencing Guidelines. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Berzon | Oct. 8, 2019 |
B288533
|
People v. Vital
CALCRIM No. 1128 was improper and prejudicial because it did not reflect the minimum age requirement for Penal Code Section 288.7(b) conviction as applying only to the direct perpetrator. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Hanasono | Oct. 7, 2019 |
D073948
|
Modification: People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Appellant failed to establish the trial court failed any requirement to forfeit bond at hearing for which the clerk failed to indicate whether or not defendant was present. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Irion | Oct. 4, 2019 |
D073740
|
People v. Lee
Under Proposition 64, a legal amount of cannabis found in possession of a driver during a traffic stop, may not establish probable cause to perform a warrant-less search. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
W. Dato | Oct. 4, 2019 |
D075368
|
People v. Gastelum
'People v. Chiu' holding does not extend to first degree lying-in-wait murder due to this type of murder being morally and legally distinguishable from first degree premeditated murder. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
P. Guerrero | Oct. 3, 2019 |
D075364
|
People v. Tejeda
Defendant's conduct at trial was inconsistent with assumptions underlying previous competency finding to such an extent that the trial court was under a duty to declare doubt as to defendant's competence. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
W. Dato | Oct. 3, 2019 |
A152211
|
People v. Carranza
Limited remand was necessary to allow appellant the opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Simons | Oct. 2, 2019 |
B292164
|
Modification: People v. Nzolameso
'Birchfield v. North Dakota' did not prohibit finding implied consent because defendant could choose from three tests, and was not forced to choose between a blood test or criminal penalties. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Stratton | Oct. 2, 2019 |
C088774
|
In re Bolton
Petitioner's combined prison sentence for crimes he committed as a juvenile, exceeded his natural lifespan; thus, his sentence violated cruel and unusual punishment prohibition of Eighth Amendment. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
M. Butz | Oct. 1, 2019 |
C1766594
|
P. v. Scarbrough
Under California Penal Code Section 1202.4 law enforcement agencies may not claim restitution costs as a victim if the cost incurred is not directly related to the criminal conviction. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
A. Grover | Sep. 30, 2019 |
A152029
|
P. v. Bryant
Prosecutor provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons to exercise peremptory strikes to remove four African-American jurors. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
S. Margulies | Sep. 30, 2019 |
A156464
|
Ortega v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County)
Probable cause is present under California Penal Code 995 when the facts are such that an ordinary person would have a strong suspicion of guilt of the accused. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
H. Needham | Sep. 26, 2019 |
B291412
|
Modification: People v. Newman
A distance as short as 190 feet satisfies the asportation element of the crime of kidnapping. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Wiley | Sep. 25, 2019 |
B291137
|
People v. Rodriguez
'Miranda' warnings are not required when suspects give voluntary statements to a person they do not know is a police officer and therefore Fifth Amendment rights are not violated. |
Criminal Law and Procedure |
|
J. Wiley | Sep. 25, 2019 |