Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, premeditated attempted murder, two counts of robbery, attempted rape, assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, and false imprisonment and kidnapping. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of death and defendant's appeal was automatic. The court concluded, or assumed for argument, that six instances of nonprejudicial error occurred during the course of defendant's trial. The court held that, given the strong evidence of defendant's guilt of first degree murder and the aggravating circumstances attending that crime, none of the trial court's missteps amounted to substantial error and there was no prejudicial cumulative effect warranting reversal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of crimes stemming from two home invasions committed the night before Mother's Day 1993, in the same neighborhood in Torrance. The most serious incident, in which the victims, - a married couple with children - were home during the burglary, resulted in convictions for first degree murder of the husband and attempted premeditated murder of the wife. Related convictions involved burglary, attempted forcible rape, and forcible oral copulation. The jury also sustained special circumstances providing that the husband's murder occurred in the commission of burglary, robbery, attempted rape, and oral copulation. Additional findings were that defendant was armed with and personally used a handgun and that he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the wife. In the other incident, defendant was convicted of burglarizing the home of a second couple who were vacationing out of town. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to death and the trial court declined to grant a new trial, denying the automatic motion to modify the death verdict. On automatic appeal, the court found no prejudicial error at defendant's trial and affirmed the judgment in its entirety. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the first degree murder of his nephew, the second degree murder of his sister, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The jury also found true the firearm-use allegations and the special circumstances of multiple murder. The jury concluded that defendant was sane and returned a verdict of death. On automatic appeal, the court considered pretrial issues, guilt phase issues, sanity phase issues, penalty phase issues, and presentencing issues. The court affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Blacksher" on Justia Law

Defendant, a member of the Crips street gang, was found guilty by a jury of the first degree murders of Perry Coder and Gregory Martin and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The jury also found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murders and the multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death. On automatic appeal, the court addressed numerous pretrial issues, guilt phase issues, and penalty phase issues and subsequently affirmed the judgment. View "People v. McKinnon" on Justia Law

Defendant attacked another inmate and was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to inflict great bodily injury by a prisoner serving a life sentence (aggravated assault by a life prisoner) and assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm or by means likely to inflict great bodily injury (aggravated assault). On appeal, defendant argued that the conviction for aggravated assault must be reversed because that offense was lesser than, and necessarily included within, the offense of aggravated assault by a life prisoner. The court agreed and reversed the judgment because the Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion. View "People v. Milward" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder of Brenda Gail Kenny with the personal use of a deadly weapon. The jury concluded, as special circumstances, that the murder was committed in the course of burglary and rape. Defendant was also convicted of first degree burglary and assault with a deadly weapon on Colleen Cliff, first degree burglary and two rapes of Regina M., first degree burglary and false imprisonment of Regenia Griffin, first degree burglary and two rapes of Julia K., first degree robbery of Joseph C., attempted murders of Phillip Courtney and Howard Long, and prowling. The jury also made numerous findings supporting weapon enhancements. Defendant was sentenced to death. On appeal, the court addressed pretrial, guilt phase, and penalty phase issues and affirmed the judgment and sentence. View "People v. Scott" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with violating a state statute that prohibited "willfully" threatening violence against a crime witness or victim, Pen. Code 140(a), where defendant, in a recorded telephone conversation with his incarcerated wife, said that he would kill an 88-year-old man who had accused the couple of stealing money from his mobile home. At issue was whether the statute violate defendant's free speech under the First Amendment. The court construed section 140(a) as requiring proof that a reasonable person would understand the allegedly threatening statements, when considered in their context and surrounding circumstances, "to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence," the high court's definition of a "true threat." Thus, section 140(a) did not violate the First Amendment. The court held that, although the appeals court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, it did so on grounds different from the reasonable person standard the court articulated. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the appeals court and remanded to that court to consider whether the court's holding affected defendant's judgment of conviction. View "The People v. Lowery" on Justia Law

This case involved serious allegations against Robert E. Stark, the auditor-controller of Sutter County where the Sutter County District Attorney's Office claimed that Stark violated statutes, county rules, and Sutter County Board of Supervisors (Board) resolutions detailing the requirements of his office. At issue were four provisions of Penal Code section 424, all of which proscribe general intent offenses. Three of those provisions criminalize acting without authority or failing to act as required by law or legal duty. The court held that those offenses additionally required that defendant knew, or was criminally negligent in failing to know, the legal requirements that governed the act or omission. The court also held that a claim of misinstruction on the mens rea of a crime could be challenged under Penal Code section 995, subdivision (a)(1)(B) where it raised the possibility that, as instructed, the grand jury could have indicted on less than reasonable or probable cause. The court further held that based on the record, the court need not decide the question of whether willful misconduct under Government Code section 3060 required a knowing and purposeful refusal to follow the law. Stark did not disagree with the instruction on mental state given by the district attorney and accompanying PowerPoint slides invalidated the instruction on mental state, requiring that the accusation be set aside. The court addressed these claims as to the district attorney's argument and PowerPoint slides and concluded that it was without merit. The court finally held that, in a motion to set aside an indictment or accusation, a defendant claiming that the district attorney suffered from a conflict of interest during the grand jury proceeding must establish that his right to due process was violated. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Stark v. Superior Court of Sutter County" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the first degree murder of Creed Grote and the attempted murder of Troy Ortiz. Defendant was also convicted of the second degree murder of Ricky McDonald. As special circumstances of the Grote murder, the jury found that defendant laid in wait, discharged a firearm from a vehicle with intent to inflict death, and committed multiple murders. The jury also found that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the Grote/Ortiz crimes, and that he thereby intended to inflict great bodily injury or death upon Grote. Finally, the jury found that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the "Three Strikes" law and therefore, defendant was sentenced to death. On automatic appeal, the court considered numerous guilt phase issues and penalty phase issues and ultimately affirmed the judgment. View "People v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Defendants, John Anthony Gonzales and Michael Soliz, members in a Hispanic street gang in the City of La Puente, were convicted of first degree murder of Lester Eaton (count 1), Elijah Skyles (count 2), and Gary Price (count 5). The jury found true the special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and murder during the commission of robbery. At the penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict for life without the possibility of parole for Gonzales for counts 4 and 5 and hung on all other penalty phase verdicts. At the penalty phase retrial, a new jury returned a verdict of death for Gonzales on count 1, a verdict of life without the possibility of parole for Soliz on count 1, and a verdict of death for Soliz on counts 4 and 5. Numerous issues were raised on automatic appeal. The court addressed pretrial issues, guilt phase issues, and penalty phase issues and ultimately affirmed Gonzalez's and Soliz's convictions and sentences. View "People v. Gonzales, et al." on Justia Law