Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose. At issue is whether misdemeanor sexual battery is a lesser include offense of sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose. The court concluded that the trial court erred by holding that misdemeanor sexual battery is a lesser included offense of sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose, so that convictions of the greater offense could be reduced to the lesser. Here, the evidence failed to show that two of the victims' consent was negated by misrepresentation. That evidence was equally insufficient to establish lack of consent for purposes of misdemeanor sexual battery. Lack of consent may be shown in other ways to prove the misdemeanor offense, but the jury did not consider alternate grounds. Moreover, a charge of sexual battery under Penal Code section 243.4(c) does not notify the defendant of the need to contest the consent issue on any basis other than the alleged fraudulent representation. Therefore, misdemeanor sexual battery cannot be deemed a lesser included offense of sexual battery by misrepresentation of professional purpose. The court reversed and remanded. View "People v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with carrying a loaded firearm on his person. The charge stemmed from an incident in which Defendant was wearing a backpack containing a loaded revolver while being pursued by a police officer. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the firearm was not carried “on the person.” The court of appeal reversed, holding that a person wearing a backpack containing a firearm carries the firearm on his person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the backpack was on Defendant’s person and, accordingly, anything inside that backpack was also on his person. View "People v. Wade" on Justia Law

In a joint trial with her codefendant, Defendant was convicted of premeditated murder and attempted premeditated murder. The court of appeal reversed Defendant’s convictions, concluding (1) the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding a testifying defendant’s failure to explain or deny incriminating trial evidence; (2) the trial court erred in admitting Defendant’s codefendant’s out-of-court statement that he and Defendant went to shoot some gang members; and (3) the prosecution committed misconduct during closing argument in commenting about the reasonable doubt standard. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court properly gave the instruction at issue; (2) the trial court properly admitted the codefendant’s out-of-court statement; and (3) the prosecution’s comments on reasonable doubt did not constitute misconduct. View "People v. Cortez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and of attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying. At issue during trial was Defendant’s intellectual ability. Following a penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court sentenced Defendant accordingly. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for dissuading a witness, vacated the witness-killing special-circumstance finding, and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in failing to reinstate competency proceedings based on certain testimony; (2) the admission of a psychiatrist’s testimony did not violate state law or Defendant’s federal constitutional rights; (3) the trial court did not prejudicially err in permitting three lay witnesses to testify that they did not categorize Defendant as intellectually disabled; (4) the trial court did not err in overruling defense objections to questions the prosecutor posed to a witness as to whether it was possible Defendant had received information on how to “fake” psychological tests while in jail; (5) the trial court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury in regard to Defendant’s intellectual disability evidence, requiring reversal of the dissuading count and the witness-killing special-circumstance finding; and (6) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase, and the death penalty is both lawful and constitutional. View "People v. Townsel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment on appeal, holding (1) no prejudicial error occurred in the jury selection process; (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant’s convictions; (3) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (4) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct during closing argument; (5) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its instructions to the jury; and (6) Defendant’s challenges to California’s death penalty statute were without merit. View "People v. Rangel" on Justia Law

Charges that Defendants committed attempted murder were twice dismissed. Thereafter, the People charged Defendants with conspiracy to commit murder based on the same underlying facts as the dismissed charges. At issue in this case was whether Cal. Penal Code 1387, which generally permits a felony charge to be dismissed and refiled once but not twice barred Defendants’ prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under section 1387. The magistrate denied the motion. Defendants then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The superior court granted the petition and dismissed the case. The Court of appeal reversed, concluding that conspiracy to commit murder is not the “same offense” as attempted murder under section 1387, and thus the statute did not bar prosecution for that crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the conspiracy to commit murder charges, as pleaded, contain all of the elements of the previously dismissed attempted murder charges, they are the same offenses as the previous charges under section 1387. View "People v. Juarez" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a commercial store with the intent to commit a robbery inside. After accomplishing the robbery, Defendant took a store employee to a bathroom in the back of the business, bound her hands, and raped her. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, forcible rape, and two burglaries. The verdict reflected the jury’s determination that Defendant committed two burglaries first when he entered the store, and then when he entered the bathroom, with the intent to commit a felony inside each space. The court of appeal affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal’s judgment upholding Defendant’s two burglary convictions, holding that the fact that a defendant has committed two entries with felonious intent into a structure and a room within that structure does not, by itself, permit multiple burglary convictions. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of a correctional officer and conspiracy to commit murder and to commit assault on correctional staff. The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder involved the knowing and intentional killing of a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death on the murder count and to life with the possibility of parole on the conspiracy count. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no prejudicial error occurred during either the guilt or penalty phases and that any alleged error regarding pretrial issues was harmless. View "People v. Masters" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and one count of robbery. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the three murder counts; (2) Defendant’s claims of error regarding jury issues were unavailing; (3) no prejudicial error occurred during the guilt phase of trial; (4) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; (5) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial; and (6) any actual or assumed errors did not, considered altogether, deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "People v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of first degree premeditated murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the multiple murders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury’s verdict finding Defendant competent to stand trial was supported by substantial evidence; (2) the trial court’s failure to conduct additional competency hearings at various points during the proceedings did not constitute a violation of Defendant’s federal constitutional right to due process of law; (3) assuming the trial court erred in permitting evidentiary portions of the trial to proceed in his absence, the error was harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument at the guilt phase of trial; (5) Defendant’s constitutional challenges to his sentence on the basis of evidence that he was mentally ill at the time of the offenses and at trial were unavailing; and (6) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of the death qualification process in jury selection and to California’s death penalty scheme failed. View "People v. Mendoza" on Justia Law