Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Harrison sought to be resentenced under Penal Code section 1170.95, which allows a defendant convicted of felony murder to have his conviction vacated and be resentenced if the conviction would not be valid under recent amendments to sections 188 and 189, which changed the law so that a participant in certain felonies in which a death occurs is generally liable for murder only if the participant was the actual killer, aided and abetted the murder with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The court of appeal reversed the denial of relief. The court and the Attorney General agreed that the court that decided Harrison’s section 1170.95 petition erred by denying it at the prima facie stage and not issuing an order to show cause. Harrison is entitled to relief on his petition as a matter of law. An acquittal can satisfy section 1170.95(d)(2) even though it does not rise to a finding of factual innocence. The trial court specifically found that Harrison was not the actual killer, did not have the intent to kill, did not act with reckless indifference to human life, and was guilty of murder as an accomplice to robbery under the felony murder rule. View "People v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Before 2018, a person who aided and abetted only an intended assault could be found guilty of second degree murder if a resulting death was a natural and probable consequence of the assault. The aider and abettor did not have to intend to aid the perpetrator in committing the life endangering act, nor be subjectively aware of the risk to human life. Murder charges that might have been brought before 2018 using the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine had to be pursued, if at all, on a direct aiding and abetting theory. And that required, among other things, the aider and abettor acted with malice aforethought. The question this case posed for the Court of Appeal's review was what evidence sufficed, for purposes of a preliminary hearing, to bind over a defendant on a direct aiding and abetting theory of implied malice murder. What started as a fist fight ended in a senseless killing: real party in interest, Daniel Valenzuela, did not stab the victim. But he instigated the fight, was armed with a screwdriver, and he brought Cesar Diaz Vasquez (Diaz), a known gang member armed with a knife, to fight on his side. Diaz stabbed 19-year-old Orlando M. a few inches above the heart. Valenzuela was charged with murder, but the magistrate dismissed that charge at the preliminary hearing. Exercising independent review, the Court of Appeal concluded there was sufficient evidence to bind over Valenzuela on an implied malice murder theory. View "California v. Super. Ct. (Valenzuela)" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the DMV's suspension of plaintiff's driver's license for one year based on his refusal to submit to a blood or breath test. The court concluded that the border patrol agent's temporary investigative stop of plaintiff was not illegal where the agent reasonably suspected the minivan was involved with illegal smuggling. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that police failed to read a particular sentence when admonishing him that his refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in a license suspension. View "Elmore v. Gordon" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction for first degree murder of three victims and the sale of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding on one firearm enhancement allegation; the jury was thoroughly instructed on principles of aider and abettor liability and the trial court did not err in declining to instruct the jury with defendant's proposed modification to the jury instructions; there was no error in admitting evidence pertaining to a traffic stop of the car in which defendant was riding shortly before two of the murders; and there was no error in excluding third party culpability evidence. However, the court vacated the gang-related special circumstance and enhancement findings and remanded for further proceedings. Finally, the court rejected defendant's contention that the cumulative effect of the claimed errors identified in his appeal deprived him of due process of law and a fair trial. View "People v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Nancy Grassi petitioned for mandamus relief, arguing the trial court erred by concluding she was statutorily ineligible for misdemeanor diversion. Grassi argued California Penal Code section 1001.95’s plain language and legislative history made diversion available to misdemeanor driving under the influence defendants despite Vehicle Code section 23640’s prohibition on granting diversion to driving under the influence defendants. In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal concluded the two statutes could be harmonized to provide diversion to misdemeanor defendants, except for those defendants excluded in Penal Code section 1001.95(e), and misdemeanor driving under the influence defendants pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23640. Accordingly, the Court denied the petition. View "Grassi v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Zgurski came to the attention of the San Francisco District Attorney because of his involvement in a scheme to defraud consumers who used the internet to purchase a boat from a person ostensibly called Eisenberg. He was convicted of using the personal identifying information of another person for an unlawful purpose (Penal Code 530.5(a). The trial court reduced Zgurski’s felony conviction to a misdemeanor and placed him on probation for three years.The court of appeal affirmed. Substantial evidence supports Zgurski’s conviction and modification of his probation term is not required. While Zgurski is entitled to the benefit of a 2021 amendment to Penal Code section 1203a, which generally limits the maximum probation term for a misdemeanor conviction to one year, his probation term has been terminated. View "People v. Zgurski" on Justia Law

Cesar was shot and killed in 2016. Murder charges were filed against Santacruz, Cervantes, Alcantar, and Duran. Vallejo (Duran’s mother) was charged as an accessory after the fact. Judge Colin dismissed that charge against Vallejo in the interest of justice under Penal Code 1385 on February 20, 2020. Judge Colin later recused himself at the request of the prosecution. The case was assigned to Judge Clark, who found Judge Colin’s recusal to have been a concession to retroactive disqualification, and on June 22, 2020, granted the prosecution’s motion to set aside as void all rulings of Judge Colin dating back to January 9, including the February 20 dismissal, thereby reinstating the accessory count against Vallejo.The court of appeal vacated Judge Clark’s ruling, noting that whether the February 20 dismissal was an appropriate exercise of discretion was not before the court. Judge Colin’s order dismissing the charge against Vallejo was a final order terminating the trial court’s authority over her case. The prosecution had a clear remedy to address the trial court’s alleged bias or appearance of bias underlying the dismissal—an appeal under Penal Code 1238,(a)(8), but elected not to appeal. Judge Clark was without jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal. View "Vallejo v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Turner was charged with committing two unrelated murders (the Oakland and Hayward murders). The cases were consolidated. At the close of evidence, Turner renewed his earlier motion to sever the charges on the ground the evidence he committed the Oakland murder was weak. The court granted the motion, ruling it would leave the jury to decide only the Hayward case. Turner then unsuccessfully sought a mistrial in the Hayward case, arguing that the jury would be influenced improperly by having heard the evidence of the Oakland murder.The court of appeal reversed his second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a retrial. The trial court abused its discretion in denying Turner's motion for a mistrial. The verdict of second-degree murder does not show the jury was uninfluenced by the evidence concerning the Oakland case. The evidence of premeditation “was less than overwhelming.” The success of Turner’s position that he was guilty only of voluntary manslaughter depended largely on the jury accepting his credibility when he testified that the victim used a racial slur and lunged toward him and that he was afraid of the victim and his dog—credibility that was “surely damaged: by evidence this was not the first time he shot and killed an unarmed man. View "People v. Turner" on Justia Law

Defendant Robert Clark appealed his conviction for second degree murder and true findings on the associated firearm enhancements. He argued the trial court erred by inquiring into the identity of a holdout juror and subsequently dismissing that juror, as well as by failing to grant his motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. He also argued the trial court was biased against him, thus violating his right to due process and a fair trial. After review of the trial court record, the Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed defendant's conviction. View "California v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant Harry Howard filed a motion for a Franklin proceeding three decades after committing the underlying offense. By that time, he had already introduced youth-related evidence at a prior parole hearing, but he had never requested a Franklin proceeding. The court denied his motion on its face because it failed to show what additional evidence merited preservation. The Court of Appeal found the trial court prematurely denied Howard’s request. "His motion met the legal requirements to initiate the Franklin process. As such, the court should have provided Howard an opportunity to explain the evidence he sought to introduce before determining whether a Franklin proceeding was warranted." Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "California v. Howard" on Justia Law