6 results for 'judge:"Groban"'.
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. 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
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. Groban finds that the appeals court erred in requiring that private universities allow students accused of intimate partner violence the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and accusers. Private organizations must use fair procedures that include a notice of charges and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But they have the responsibility to devise their own methods without the courts imposing fixed procedures that must be followed in every situation, and live hearings with cross-examination are not required. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: S263180, Categories: Civil Rights, Education, Due Process
J. Groban finds that the trial court properly held that the preemption provision of Medicare Part C expressly preempted negligence, wrongful death and elder abuse allegations against an HMO and a health care services administrator. The standards in Part C supersede any state law duties, including those that duplicate federal duties. The Part C preemption provision applies to common law claims, as well as claims based on state laws that are not directed at Medicare Advantage plans. Affirmed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: July 13, 2023, Case #: S271501, Categories: Preemption, Negligence, Medicare
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. Groban finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for murder, though the court of appeal improperly affirmed the sentencing enhancements for his association with a criminal street gang and for firearm use. The jury was not instructed, as required by a recent Assembly Bill, that the predicate offenses must have “commonly benefited [the] criminal street gang, and the common benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.” It was not proven whether defendant’s claims of gang association were true or not, and the firearm enhancement is contingent upon the gang enhancement. The court of appeal’s affirmation of the enhancements is reversed and remanded.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: S273134, Categories: Murder, Sentencing, Gangs