Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of nonforcible lewd conduct. The trial court placed Defendant on probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender, mandated his participation in an approved sex offender management program, and imposed two probation conditions that were the subject of this appeal - (1) that Defendant waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(3); and (2) that Defendant waive any psychotherapist-patient privilege, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(4). Defendant appealed, arguing that conditioning probation on the waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and on his participation in polygraph examinations violated his Fifth Amendment rights and, like the waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege, was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the subdivision (b)(4) and (b)(3) conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation conditions challenged in this case were not unconstitutional where they enabled those charged with monitoring the probation to obtain the information they need while otherwise safeguarding the probation’s privacy and protecting the probation from compelled self-incrimination. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery. The jury found true allegations that Defendant personally used a firearm during both robberies. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of robbery. The Attorney General conceded the error but argued that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the error was reversible per se. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the trial court’s failure to give the standard jury instruction on the elements of robbery was not reversible per se but was reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the error in this case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "People v. Merritt" on Justia Law

In People v. Hosner, the Supreme Court held that an indigent criminal defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a full and complete transcript of the prior proceedings. Defendant in this case was an indigent pro se defendant charged with making criminal threats, among other offenses. A jury deadlocked on the charges, the court declared a mistrial, and retrial was set. At a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for a “complete record of trial transcripts.” Defendant received a transcript that included all witness testimony from the first trial but omitted the opening statements and closing arguments. The court then denied Defendant’s request for a transcript of the opening statements and closing arguments. After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Hosner’s presumption applies only to transcripts of witness testimony and not to transcripts of opening statements and closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) a defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a full transcript of the previous trial, including opening and closing statements; (2) when a defendant is denied only a portion of the transcript, the harmless error rule applies; and (3) the error was harmless in this case. View "People v. Reese" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of assault by a life prisoner with malice aforethought, and possession of a sharp instrument by a prisoner. The jury also found that Defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. The jury returned a death verdict. The trial court sentenced Defendant accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no reversible error occurred during either the guilt phase or penalty phase of trial; and (2) Defendant’s attacks on the constitutionality of California’s death penalty statute and related standard jury instructions were unavailing. View "People v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Johnny Morales was sentenced to death. Appellate counsel filed in the superior court a “Motion to Preserve Files, Records, Evidence and Other Items Related to Automatic Appeal” seeking an order seeking preservation of several types of materials. Appellate counsel cited in support her responsibilities under a Supreme Court policy that, until habeas corpus counsel is appointed, Appellate counsel’s responsibilities include “preserv[ing] evidence that comes to the attention of appellate counsel if that evidence appears relevant to a potential habeas corpus investigation.” The superior court granted the motion in its entirety. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to vacate its preservation order and enter a new order denying the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a superior court has jurisdiction to grant a motion to preserve evidence relating to a capital case then pending review on automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, limited to evidence potentially discoverable under Cal. Penal Code 1054.9. View "People v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base for sale and placed on three years of probation. The terms of Defendant’s probation barred him from possessing firearms or illegal drugs. Defendant offered no objection to either condition. Defendant appealed, arguing that these conditions were unconstitutionally vague on their face because they did not explicitly define the mens rea required to sustain a violation of probation. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that the firearms and narcotics conditions did not need to be modified to bar “knowing” possession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation conditions afford Defendant fair notice of the conduct required of him because they already include an implicit requirement of knowing possession. View "People v. Hall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the course of a robbery with personal use of a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no Pitchess error; (2) the trial court did not err in its jury selection rulings; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant’s incriminating recorded statements, as the statements were voluntarily given; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for severance; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim; (6) any error in the stationing of a deputy near the witness stand during Defendant’s testimony was harmless; (7) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; (8) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s automatic motion to modify the death verdict; and (9) California’s use of the death penalty does not violate international norms of evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. View "People v. Winbush" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person. The convictions were based on the same act. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Defendant could not be convicted of both counts and vacated the conviction of rape of an unconscious person. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was properly convicted of both rape of an intoxicated person and rape of an unconscious person, as the Legislature did not intend a defendant who commits oral copulation of an intoxicated and unconscious person can be guilty of two offenses, whereas a defendant who commits rape of an intoxicated and unconscious person can be guilty of only one offense. View "People v. White" on Justia Law

The ACLU submitted a request under the California Public Records Act (PRA) to the Los Angeles County Counsel seeking invoices specifying the amounts that the County and been billed by any law firm in connection with several different lawsuits alleging excessive force against jail inmates. The County refused to provide invoices for the lawsuits that were still pending on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The ACLU petitioned for writ of mandate seeking to compel the County to disclose the requested records. The superior court granted the petition, concluding that the County had failed to show that the invoices were attorney-client privileged communications. The County then filed a petition for writ of mandate. The court of appeal granted the petition and vacated the superior court’s order, concluding that the invoices were confidential communications within the meaning of Cal. Evid. Code 952. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the attorney-client privilege does not categorically shield everything in a billing invoice from PRA disclosure, but invoices for work in pending and active legal matters implicate the attorney-client privilege; and (2) therefore, the privilege protects the confidentiality of invoices for work in pending and active legal matters. View "Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of carjacking and robbery. Both convictions were based on the same forceful taking of a vehicle. Defendant appealed, arguing that his forceful taking of the vehicle constituted a single physical act subject to the prohibition on multiple punishment under Cal. Penal Code 654, and therefore, section 654 barred his robbery sentence. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that there were two intents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the same action completed the actus reus for each of the crimes of which Defendant was convicted, and therefore, Defendant’s one-year robbery sentence must be stayed. View "People v. Corpening" on Justia Law