Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first degree murder and one count of second degree murder and sentencing him to death. The court held (1) Defendant was not deprived of the right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community; (2) the trial court did not err in ruling that evidence of an uncharged murder would be admissible to impeach Defendant’s witness under certain circumstances; (3) the trial court did not err in ruling that the prosecution could admit evidence that Defendant had attempted to escape from jail; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting the victim’s statement that Defendant was into “heavy stuff” or in admitting victim impact evidence; (4) there was no prejudicial error in the jury instruction; (5) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s requests for a separate penalty phase jury and sequestered voir dire; (6) Defendant was not prejudiced by any improper argument by the prosecutor; (7) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victims or evidence that Defendant will kill a guard to escape; and (8) Defendant’s sentence was constitutional. View "People v. Henriquez" on Justia Law

On a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as on direct appeal, error under People v. Chiu, 325 P.3D 972 (Cal. 2014), requires reversal unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury actually relied on a legally valid theory in convicting the defendant of first degree murder.Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder. The jury was instructed on both a direct aiding and abetting theory and a natural and probable consequences theory. After Petitioner was convicted, the Supreme Court held in Chiu that a natural and probable consequences theory of liability cannot serve as a basis for a first degree murder conviction. Petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that he was entitled to have his conviction reduced to second degree murder under Chiu. The court of appeal acknowledged that the jury instruction on natural and probable consequences was error under Chiu but affirmed the first degree murder conviction on the ground that it was supported by sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to grant Petitioner habeas corpus relief, holding that the Chiu error in this case was prejudicial. View "In re Martinez" on Justia Law

A person convicted before Proposition 47’s (the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”) passage for vehicle theft under Cal. Veh. Code 10851 may be resentenced under Cal. Penal Code 1170.18 if the person can show the vehicle was worth $950 or less.As approved by voters in 2014, Proposition 47 added Cal. Penal Code 490.2, which provides that “obtaining any property by theft” is to be punished as a misdemeanor if the value of the property taken is $950 or less. Cal. Penal Code 1170.18 establishes procedures under which a person serving a felony sentence at the time of Proposition 47’s passage may be resentenced to a misdemeanor term. At issue was the application of these provisions to a prior conviction under Cal. Veh. Code 10851 - taking or driving a vehicle without the owner’s consent. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts in this case erred in holding that a defendant with a Cal. Veh. Code 10851 conviction is categorically ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. View "People v. Page" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes and sentencing him to death but remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of Defendant’s restitution fine. The court held (1) although Defendant’s absent from portions of the proceedings violated his statutory right to be present, the error was harmless; (2) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to an impartial jury by excusing a prospective juror for cause because of her views on the death penalty; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant’s confession; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a conditional plea offer as mitigation during the penalty phase; (5) Defendant’s challenges to California’s death penalty scheme were unavailing; and (6) the trial court applied the wrong statute in imposing Defendant’s restitution fine. View "People v. Wall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of death imposed by the trial court in connection with Defendant’s conviction of first degree murder, holding that Defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial on penalty was invalid. The court also vacated as unauthorized Defendant’s sentence of death in connection with the conviction of second degree murder and directed the superior court to issue an amended judgment reflecting the appropriate sentence of fifteen years to life. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in all other respects and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Petitioner’s constitutional challenges to Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016, did not warrant relief.Proposition 66, which was approved by California voters in the November 2016 election, is intended to facilitate the enforcement of judgments and achieve cost savings in capital cases. Petitioner sought writ relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that Proposition 66 embraces more than one subject in violation of the California Constitution, interferes with the jurisdiction of courts to hear original petitions for habeas corpus relief, violates inmates’ equal protection rights by treating capital prisoners differently from other prisoners with respect to successive habeas corpus petitions, and violates the separation of powers doctrine by materially impairing courts’ ability to resolve capital appeals and habeas corpus petitions. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Proposition 66 is not unconstitutional; but (2) in order to avoid separation of powers problems, provisions of Proposition 66 that appear to impose strict deadlines on the resolution of judicial proceedings must be deemed directive rather than mandatory. View "Briggs v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction of misdemeanor battery of a peace officer, holding that the People failed to prove that the victim, a member of the City of Santa Barbara harbor patrol, was a “peace officer” within the meaning of Cal. Pen. Code 243(b). The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, concluding that a harbor patrol officer need not have the primary duty of law enforcement to be a peace officer. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal to the extent it affirmed Defendant’s conviction for battery under section 243(b), holding (1) this court agrees with People v. Miller, 164 Cal. App. 4th 653, 665-668 (2008), and concludes that a harbor patrol officer must have the primary duty of law enforcement to be a peace officer; and (2) the People in this case did not prove that the primary duty of the harbor patrol officer battered by Defendant was law enforcement. View "People v. Pennington" on Justia Law

Under the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Realignment Act) incarcerated parolees facing revocation under Cal. Penal Code 1203.2 are entitled to a timely preliminary hearing.At issue in this case was whether the enactment of the Realignment Act, which transferred jurisdiction over most parole revocation hearings from the Board of Parole Hearings to the superior courts, made unnecessary a prompt preliminary hearing after arrest to determine whether there was probable cause to believe a parole violation had occurred. Even though this case was moot, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to decide what procedure should govern parole revocation proceedings under the Realignment Act. The Supreme Court held that the preliminary hearing requirement set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, (1972) applies to parole revocation proceedings conducted in superior court. View "People v. DeLeon" on Justia Law

To find that an inmate was armed with a firearm during the commission of the inmate’s challenged third strike offense under the Three Strikes law, a court reviewing a Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act) recall petition may rely on facts underlying counts dismissed pursuant to the inmate’s plea agreement, so long as those facts establish that the defendant was armed during his offense of conviction.In this case, Petitioner petitioned to recall his sentence under the Act. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Petitioner was armed with a firearm during the commission of his third offense qualifying as a strike under the Three Strikes law. In making this finding, the trial court reviewed the transcript of the 1996 preliminary hearing held before Petitioner pleaded guilty. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Petitioner was armed with a firearm during the commission of his grand theft from a person offense. View "People v. Estrada" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for two counts of first degree murder and related crimes and Defendant’s sentence of death. The court held (1) any error in the trial court’s restriction of cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain testimony during the guilt phase to the effect that Defendant was no longer an active member of the Rolling 20’s Crips at the time of the shootings; (3) the trial court did not err in permitting the prosecution to play for the jury a recorded telephone call between Defendant and his brother that took place shortly before Defendant’s first preliminary hearing; (4) the trial court did not err in excusing a certain juror during the death qualification phase of jury selection; and (5) Defendant’s challenges to California’s capital sentencing scheme and to his death sentence were unavailing. View "People v. Jones" on Justia Law