Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the delay in bringing charges against Defendant did not violate his due process rights; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings during the guilt phase of trial; (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during the guilt phase closing argument; (4) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its evidentiary rulings during the penalty phase of trial; (5) the trial court properly instructed the jury during the penalty phase; and (6) the remainder of Defendant’s claims have already been rejected by the Court. View "People v. Cordova" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of violating Cal. Penal Code 451(b), which forbids arson of “an inhabited structure or inhabited property.” Specifically, the jury found Defendant guilty of “arson of an inhabited structure as charged.” The prosecution did not charge Defendant with arson of property, but the court instructed the jury on it. In accordance with the trial court’s instructions, the jury did not return a verdict on the lesser crimes, including arson of property. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction, which precludes retrial of that charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances, the lesser offense of arson of property was prosecuted in a single proceeding along with the section 451(b) charge, and therefore, Cal. Penal Code 654, as interpreted in Kellett v. Superior Court, does not prohibit retrying Defendant for that lesser offense. View "People v. Goolsby" on Justia Law