Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, two counts of assault by a life prisoner with malice aforethought, and one count of custodial possession of a weapon. The jury returned a verdict of death following a penalty trial. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court struck the one-year enhancement imposed on the assault by a life prisoner count for personal use of a deadly weapon and otherwise affirmed the judgment, holding (1) Defendant’s guilt phase claims were unavailing; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, imposition of the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon enhancement was barred on the assault by a life prisoner count, but the remainder of Defendant’s sentence was proper. View "People v. Landry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder under the special circumstance of murder in the commission of robbery, attempted premeditated murder, and first degree residential robbery. The jury found true personal firearm-use allegations. The jury returned a verdict of death after a penalty trial, and the trial court imposed a judgment of death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the prosecutor’s stated reasons as to the exercise of peremptory challenges against three African-American prospective jurors were genuine and race neutral; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings; and (3) there was no reason to reconsider previous holdings regarding challenges to California’s death penalty law. View "People v. Melendez" on Justia Law

Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. posted a bail bond on behalf of Oscar Grijalva. The bail was subsequently forfeited. Under Cal. Penal Code 1305, the bond would be exonerated if Grijalva appeared in court by the 185th day after the notice was mailed. Five days after the appearance period ended, Financial Casualty moved to extend the period under section 1305.4. The trial court granted an extension for fewer than 180 days. At the end of the extension period, Financial Casualty filed a second extension motion. The trial court denied the second extension motion and entered summary judgment on the bond. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a trial court may weigh the likelihood of apprehension in deciding whether the surety has shown good cause for an extension; (2) because at the time Financial Casualty’s second extension motion was heard fewer than 180 days had passed since the first extension was ordered, the trial court had discretion to grant a further extension; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering, as grounds for denying the extension of the period for exonerating the bail bond, that Financial Casualty had not shown the requests extension was likely to produce Grijalva’s appearance in court. View "People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to grand theft from the person, a felony, and admitted a prior robbery conviction on condition that he receive a six-year prison sentence. The People, in return, dismissed the robbery charge. The electorate later enacted Proposition 47, which reduced the grand theft offense to a misdemeanor. Defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence, asking the trial court to resentence him as a misdemeanant. The trial court denied relief, concluding that reducing the sentence would deprive the People of the benefit of their plea bargain, and thus they should be permitted to rescind the plea and reinstate the original robbery charge. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the People were not entitled to set aside the plea agreement when Defendant sought to have his sentence recalled under Proposition 47. View "Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal proceedings. One week later, Petitioner asked the court clerk for the name of the judge assigned to his petition. Superior Court Judge John M. Thompson subsequently summarily denied Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. Petitioner then filed a new petition for writ of habeas corpus, and, in addition, Petitioner alleged that he was denied his statutory right to peremptorily challenge Judge Thompson. The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the superior court to reassign the assessment of Maas’s petition for writ of habeas corpus to a judge other than Judge Thompson. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a petitioner who requests the name of the judge assigned to examine his habeas corpus petition is entitled to notice of that assignment and is entitled to peremptorily challenge the assigned judge, so long as all of the procedural requirements of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 170.6 have been satisfied. View "Maas v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and related crimes. After the penalty phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of death, remanded the matter for a new penalty determination and reconsideration of the question of a restitution fine under the currently applicable statute, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects, holding (1) no prejudicial error occurred during the guilt phase of trial; (2) the trial court erred in excusing a prospective juror for cause under Witt based solely on written questionnaire responses regarding his views on capital punishment, and therefore, the penalty judgment must be reversed for error under Wainwright v. Witt and Witherspoon v. Illinois; and (3) the question of Defendant’s restitution fine must be remanded for reconsideration because Defendant’s restitution fine was imposed pursuant to a statute that was subsequently repealed in its entirety and replaced by a statute lessening punishment. View "People v. Covarrubias" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with criminal offenses. Defendant filed a renewed motion to suppress pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1538.5(i). Judge Vincent Chiarello granted the renewed motion, and the case was dismissed at the People’s request. Thereafter, the People filed a new complaint alleging the same offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, asserting that the proper venue for the motion was before Judge Chiarello pursuant to section 1538.5(p). The matter came before Judge Vanessa Zecher after Judge Jerome Nadler concluded that Judge Chiarello was not available. Judge Zecher denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant filed a renewed motion to suppress, arguing that Judge Chiarello should have heard the relitigated motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that a renewed motion to suppress under section 1538.5(i) was not the proper vehicle for setting aside Judge Zecher’s order. Defendant was found guilty of child pornography. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a trial court’s discretion to make determinations concerning the availability of judges must be exercised in a manner consistent with constraints imposed by section 1538.5(p); and (2) in this case, the trial court abused its discretion by not taking reasonable measures to ensure compliance with section 1538.5(p), and the error was prejudicial. View "People v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law