54 results for 'court:"California Supreme Court"'.
J. Corrigan finds that the trial court should have suppressed the methamphetamine and revolver police found in defendant's car as the products of an unlawful search. His presence in a high crime area at night, ducking out of sight, fiddling with his shoes and refusing to acknowledge police officers are factors that police are not required to ignore. But they were not acts of outright evasion and did not combine to support an articulable and reasonable suspicion that he was involved in illegal conduct. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: S267522, Categories: Drug Offender, Firearms, Search
J. Guerrero denies a petition for review. The trial court imposition of a parole revocation restitution fine was improper since defendant's life sentence for murder did not include the possibility of parole. Also, counsel did not display racial animus by telling him to use street slang, which was valid advice intended to preserve his credibility on the stand. Reversed in part.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: May 1, 2024, Case #: A165198, Categories: Murder, Parole, Restitution
J. Liu holds that the appeals court erred in limiting the resentencing authority of a trial court that had stricken a firearm enhancement. A trial court may impose a lesser included, uncharged enhancement that is supported by findings, even if the enhancement is from somewhere in the penal code other than the firearm enhancement statute. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: S275940, Categories: Firearms, Murder, Sentencing
J. Evans, in answer to a question from the U.S. Ninth Circuit, holds that non-convicted incarcerated people preparing food for a for-profit company contracted to supply meals in a county jail are not entitled to minimum or overtime wages. The applicable penal code section does not differentiate between pretrial or convicted detainees in setting the maximum daily wage at $2.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: S277120, Categories: Employment, Prisoners' Rights
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court properly reversed defendant's conviction for dissuading a witness. The subject statute is ambiguous about whether the offense requires an attempt to prevent the filing of a criminal complaint or to prevent a witness from providing evidence in support of conviction, or both. So, the rule of lenity requires a reading that favors defendant, who tried to dissuade only after the underlying charges were filed. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: S273797, Categories: Criminal Procedure, Witnesses
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Jenkins finds the lower court properly determined that an arbitration agreement, signed by a health care agent, does not bind the principal to its terms. A patient at a skilled nursing facility had executed a medical power of attorney prior to being admitted. The power of attorney designated a specific person to act as his agent concerning health care matters, and when the patient experienced a medical circumstance that required a stay at a skilled nursing facility, his agent signed a contract for the patient to be admitted and a separate arbitration agreement. When the patient was discharged and decided to file suit against the nursing facility regarding his care, the nursing facility asked the court to compel arbitration per the agreement. But the lower court found that the patient’s admission was not contingent upon the agent signing the separate arbitration agreement, therefore the arbitration agreement was outside the scope of the agent’s authority, as it was not a health care decision at that point. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: S276545, Categories: Arbitration, Health Care, Contract
J. Liu finds, in answer to the U.S. Ninth Circuit, an employee must be paid for "hours worked" for time spent waiting for an employer-mandated vehicle security inspection before exiting an employer's premises. Time spent traveling from the security checkpoint to an employee parking area must be paid as "employer-mandated travel," but not "hours worked" because the level of employer control is lower. A collective bargaining agreement for an "unpaid meal period" does not apply if an employee is not allowed to leave the work premises during lunch, in which case an employee must be paid for "hours worked."
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: S275431, Categories: Labor / Unions
J. Evans holds that the appeals court erred in reducing the restitution damages a vehicle buyer was awarded by the amount the buyer recovered by trading in the defective vehicle. The restitution amount may not be offset by a trade-in credit or sales proceeds where a manufacture's failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act forces a buyer to trade in or sell a defective vehicle. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: S266034, Categories: Vehicle, Damages, Warranty
J. Kruger holds that the appeals court improperly concluded that defendant is entitled to a parole hearing despite the life without parole sentence he received for murdering his elderly neighbor when he was 25. The legislature expanded youth offender parole hearings to include most young adult offenders, but equal protection rights do not constitutionally compel that parole become available to defendants convicted of special circumstance murder. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: S277487, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Equal Protection
J. Kruger holds that the trial court was within its discretion to deny a builder's request for relief from its waiver of its right to a jury trial in a contract dispute with a homeowner. The trial court properly prioritized the hardship the builder faced in preparing for a jury trial that the homeowner had requested, and then waived, when considering the builder's request for relief from its own jury trial waiver. But the trial court also had discretion to consider that the builder failed to demand a jury or post jury fees until the day the trial began. Also, the builder failed to show on appeal that the denial caused actual prejudice. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: S273368, Categories: Civil Procedure, Jury, Contract
J. Kruger finds the court of appeals improperly rejected defendant’s argument that the gang enhancements amendment required two or more gang members to commit the two required predicate offenses. Defendant was convicted for false imprisonment, burglary and forced oral copulation, and sentenced to 20 years in prison and an indeterminate term of 90 years to life, including the 10-year gang enhancements. The prosecution failed to present evidence as to whether the offenses were committed to benefit a gang, so the case is remanded to reconsider the gang enhancement. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: S275746, Categories: Burglary, Constitution, Gangs
J. Liu finds that the probate court properly held that an amendment to a revocable trust was valid. A trust without explicit provisions precluding modification or requiring exclusive procedures for modification may be modified using the statutory procedures for revocation. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: S271483, Categories: Trusts, Wills / Probate
J. Groban finds that the state failed to give defendant fair notice it would ask for an enhanced One Strike 25-years-to-life sentence for a sex offense count. The express pleading requirement of the One Strike law entitled him to know the specific facts the prosecution would rely on to support a sentencing enhancement. Late notification that the victim's young age would support the enhancement violated his due process rights, so the trial court must resentence him to 15 years to life. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: S258376, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender, Due Process
J. Kruger holds that the appeals court must revisit its rejection of the trial court's conclusion that an implied easement had been established over an eight-foot-wide strip of land. Though not favored by the law, an exclusive implied easement is recognized if it was the clear intent of the parties to the underlying land transaction. The appeals court must examine whether substantial evidence supports a finding that the long-term use of the strip by neighbors and their predecessors for a planter, wall and driveway established an intent to create an easement. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: February 1, 2024, Case #: S275023, Categories: Evidence, Property, Contract
J. Guerrero upholds the death sentence defendant received after pleading guilty to five counts of murder, along with life sentences for robbery, kidnapping and other counts. Evidence seized that was not specified in search warrants did not support a blanket suppression of all seized evidence since the warrants were sufficiently particular, were supported by probable cause, and allowed police to look in every corner of his residence for any trace evidence. Also, the jury was properly impaneled, evidence of corpse dismemberment was properly admitted, a misstatement by the state during closing argument did not merit reversal, and the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: S132256, Categories: Death Penalty, Murder
J. Guerrero finds that the appeals court properly reinstated a representative Private Attorneys General Act complaint that the trial court had dismissed on manageability grounds. Trial courts lack the broad authority to strike claims for judicial economy reasons, as their inherent authority is limited to situations such as frivolous claims and a failure to prosecute. Also, the unique manageability requirements of class actions, which sound in equity, do not apply to Act claims, which are statutory enforcement actions that do not ask trial courts to consider superiority or the predominance of common issues. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: S274340, Categories: Civil Procedure, Employment, Class Action
J. Liu finds the trial court improperly convicted defendant for a gang-related murder. Retroactive application of a recent bill narrowing the definition of "street gang" to the gang-murder special circumstance does not violate limitation on legislative amendment in the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, and the prosecution concedes the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the gang enhancement in this case. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu , Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: S275835, Categories: Juvenile Law, Murder, Gangs
J. Guerrero reverses the appeals court's decision affirming the juvenile court's removal of the child from the drug-addicted father. The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split of authority regarding the meaning of “substance abuse" within the Welfare and Institutions Code verses the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Neither definition is essential. The law at issue assigns “substance abuse” its ordinary meaning of excessive use of drugs or alcohol. Though professional diagnoses can be relevant to determining the existence of substance abuse, the statute does not require such proof. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero , Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: S274943, Categories: Family Law, Health Care, Guardianship
J. Guerrero finds the court of appeals improperly rejected defendant's argument the state hospital's certification of his return to competency ended his commitment within the 2-year statutory period. Defendant was charged with multiple sexually violent offenses and was designated for competency determination and restoration. He did not receive a court hearing on the hospital's determination of competence within the 2-year period due to Covid-19 delays and his incompetency commitment did not end with the mere filing of the certificate of restoration. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero , Filed On: December 14, 2023, Case #: S272129, Categories: Competence, Sex Offender, Commitment
J. Guerrero holds that the trial court rightly held that defendant, seeking relief under changes to murder accomplice liability law, was bound by the jury's gang-murder special circumstance finding that he had intended to kill. The trial court properly gave the finding a preclusive effect when assessing defendant's petition, and it correctly required him to state a prima facie case for relief. But the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing since his intent to kill did not establish his knowledge of the actual shooter's intent to kill as necessary for aider and abettor murder liability.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Guerrero, Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: S272238, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Gangs
J. Liu answers the court of appeals' question as to whether the citizen's suit, which claims Californians are owed $2.5 billion for PG&E-caused power shutoffs, is barred by public utility code. The suit is barred because it does not allege the shutoffs were unnecessary or that they violated code.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Liu , Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: S273340, Categories: Energy, Agency, Class Action
J. Groban finds the court of appeals improperly upheld the lower court's mid-range sentence for defendant, who was convicted for false imprisonment of his girlfriend by violence, while on a meth-fueled, delusional tirade that included punching and kicking her, as well as spraying her with pepper spray and glass cleaner. While defendant's appeal was pending, the legislature enacted a bill requiring courts to enter a lower term when a psychological, physical, or childhood trauma contributed to the offense, and the record does not clearly indicate the lower court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware of the scope of its discretionary powers under the current bill. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban , Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: S275788, Categories: Sentencing, Assault, Kidnapping
[Modified.] J. Evans changes a footnote with no change in judgment. The appeals court erred when it determined that protected class members had not satisfied the dilution element of its California Voting Rights Act claim. The appeals court must apply the correct legal standard when it revisits whether Hispanic voters showed that their ability to influence election outcomes is diluted by at-large elections. Unlike its federal counterpart, the Act does not require a protected class to show it is geographically concentrated enough to form a hypothetical single-member district. Another distinction is that an Act claim does not require a showing that at-large voting impairs a protected class's ability to elect candidates, only that the at-large method impairs its ability to influence election outcomes. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: S263972, Categories: Elections
J. Kruger finds that a sex offender's due process rights have not been violated even though a trial on a petition to indefinitely recommit him to the state hospital as a sexually violent predator has been pending since 2007. Constitutional speedy trial rights apply to petitions to recommit sex offenders under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, but a trial has not yet been held on a petition to recommit the offender that was filed in 2007.
The length of the delay indicates that both the state and the trial court should have worked harder to ensure the offender's due process right to a timely trial. But the offender did not demonstrate that he sought a trial on the petition before 2018 or that he suffered prejudice by the delay. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: S273391, Categories: Sex Offender, Speedy Trial, Due Process
J. Goethals finds that the trial court should have granted an anti-SLAPP motion to a news organization. The motion sought to overcome a professor's effort to prevent the Public Records Act disclosure of her communications with her university and with non-university journals that had corrected or retracted articles she had written. The protected activity of newsgathering in a matter of public interest was the basis of the records request. A partially taxpayer-funded university's handling of scholarly integrity is public business and the professor's petition for writ of mandate and injunctive relief to prevent the release of the communications could inhibit free speech. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: G061238, Categories: Anti-slapp, Civil Rights, Public Record
J. Evans finds that the appeals court erred when it determined that protected class members had not satisfied the dilution element of its California Voting Rights Act claim. The appeals court must apply the correct legal standard when it revisits whether Hispanic voters showed that their ability to influence election outcomes is diluted by at-large elections. Unlike its federal counterpart, the Act does not require a protected class to show it is geographically concentrated enough to form a hypothetical single-member district. Another distinction is that an Act claim does not require a showing that at-large voting impairs a protected class's ability to elect candidates, only that the at-large method impairs its ability to influence election outcomes. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: S263972, Categories: Elections
J. Kruger finds that the appeals court improperly invalidated a regulation that bars bail bond agents from contracting with jail inmates to notify agents of new arrests. The appeals court held that the Bail Bond Regulatory Act violates the First Amendment, but the Act only prohibits agents from using inmates to solicit arrestees and agents may still seek information about arrestees from public sources. Also, the state has interests beyond the way that bail bond agents drum up business, as the Act promotes the orderly administration of jails and fair competition between bail bond agents. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Kruger, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: S267138, Categories: Constitution, Bail
J. Jenkins, in answer to a question certified from the U.S. Ninth Circuit, holds that the Fair Employment and Housing Act's definition of an employer, which includes "any person acting as an agent of an employer," allows employment discrimination liability to attach to a business entity that carries out Act-regulated activities as an agent of an employer.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: August 21, 2023, Case #: S273630, Categories: Employment
J. Groban finds that the trial court should have provided a jury instruction on imperfect self-defense at defendant's murder trial since it was supported by substantial record evidence. To prove the malice element of murder, the state must show the absence of imperfect self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The failure to provide an imperfect self-defense instruction where it is required by the record is a violation of the federal Constitution. So, the appeals court should have applied the federal reasonable doubt standard, not California's reasonable probability standard, to evaluate whether defendant was prejudiced by the omission of the instruction at trial. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: S272237, Categories: Murder, Self Defense, Jury Instructions
J. Mumin finds that the trial court should not have given a jury a concurrent intent instruction on an attempted murder charge. The evidence does not support the theory that, in his effort to kill his primary target, defendant was trying to create a "kill zone" to kill all the police outside the door of the room where he was hiding. The number of shots defendant fired and the openness of his target area only show he had a conscious disregard for life, not a specific intent to kill. Reversed in part.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Corrigan, Filed On: August 17, 2023, Case #: S271049, Categories: Intent, Murder, Jury Instructions