Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of pandering in violation of Penal Code section 266i, subdivision (a)(2), which defined pandering as encouraging "another person to become" a prostitute. At issue was whether subdivision (a)(2) applied when the target was already a prostitute or an undercover police officer acting as one. The court held that subdivision (a)(2) included encouragement of someone who was already an active prostitute or undercover police officer and disapproved People v. Wagner and People v. Montgomery to the extent that they were inconsistent with the opinion. The court also rejected defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence that he encouraged anyone to become a prostitute where the undercover officer testified that he offered his services as pimp by telling her he would provide her with protection, housing, and clothing if she turned her earnings over to him and where defendant twice identified himself as a pimp, assured the officer that she could continue to work in the same area, and promised he would "take care of her." View "People v. Zambia" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted, among other things, for murder and sentenced to death after robberies at two McDonald's restaurants. Defendant raised jury selection issues, evidentiary issues, prosecutorial misconduct issues, issues related to counsel, instructional issues, and issues related to the prejudicial "spillover" effect of errors. Defendant also asserted error in admission of victim impact evidence and challenged the constitutionality of California's death penalty law. The court rejected defendant's argument that the cumulative effect of the guilt and penalty phase of errors required reversal of his conviction and death sentence when no single error compelled reversal and held that, whether considered singly or in combination, any error or assumed error was nonprejudicial.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract against defendants, an attorney and his law firm, where the attorney agreed to represent plaintiff in its effort to obtain approval of a redevelopment project, the attorney terminated the representation about two years later, and then the attorney became involved in a campaign to thwart the same redevelopment project by soliciting signatures on a referendum petition to overturn the city council's approval of the project. At issue was whether the court of appeals properly found that plaintiff's claims arose from protected activity in violation of the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation ("anti-SLAPP") statute, Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, and whether plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on them. The court reversed the court of appeals and held that, based on the respective showings of the parties, plaintiff's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, professional negligence, and breach of contract possessed at least minimal merit within the meaning of the anti-SLAP statute.

Plaintiff sued defendants, manufacturers of the cigarettes that she smoked for 35 years, where plaintiff was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 1989, diagnosed with periodontal disease in 1990 or 1991, and did not sue defendants of the cigarettes that she had smoked until she was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2003. At issue was whether the lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations, which required that a suit be brought within a specified period of time after the cause of action accrued. The court held that when a later-discovered latent disease was separate and distinct from earlier-discovered disease, the earlier disease did not trigger the statute of limitations for a lawsuit based on the later disease.

The Los Angeles Diocese and certain individuals sued persons connected with St. James Parish claiming that the national church owned certain church property in dispute. At issue was whether the court's decision in Episcopal Church Cases, supra, was merely affirming th previous judgment of the Court of Appeals or resolved the dispute on the merits. The court held that that it merely affirmed the previous judgment and therefore, remanded the matter for further proceedings without deciding the case on the merits.