Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was whether Defendant’s hand gesture unaccompanied by words or sound qualified as a “statement, made verbally” under Cal. Penal Code 422. Section 422 makes it a crime to threaten infliction of great bodily injury or death on another “with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat….” The trial court dismissed the criminal threat allegations against Defendant, concluding that the hand gestures could not constitute criminal threats as defined by section 422. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a threat made through nonverbal conduct falls outside the scope of section 422; and (2) Defendant’s conduct did not constitute a verbal communication merely because he intended to convey an idea through his conduct. View "People v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

During jury selection proceedings, three defendants joined in a Batson/Wheeler motion, arguing that the prosecutor improperly excluded prospective jurors on account of Hispanic ethnicity. The trial court denied the motion, finding the prosecutor’s reasons for exercising ten of sixteen peremptory challenges to remove Hispanic individuals from the jury panel to be neutral and nonpretextual. The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s denial of Defendants’ joint Batson/Wheeler motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court’s finding that Defendants had not met their burden of proving intentional discrimination with respect to at least one excluded panelist was unreasonable in light of the record of voir dire proceedings, and therefore, Defendants were denied their right to a fair trial and their right to a trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under the state Constitution; and (2) the court of appeal erred in refusing to conduct a comparative juror analysis. View "People v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-taxpayers filed a complaint against the City of Los Angeles and the Director of the Los Angeles Zoo (collectively, the City) alleging that the zoo was abusing its elephants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, ruling that the complaint raised nonjusticiable issues of public policy. The court of appeals reversed. After a bench trial, the trial court issued injunctions against the City. The court of appeal affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeal’s earlier decision established law of the case, thus barring the City’s new argument that the claim for equitable relief was precluded by Cal. Civ. Code 3369; and (2) the Legislature authorized taxpayer actions aimed at enjoining government expenditures that support criminal conduct. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this case is governed by the general rule that law of the case does not apply to arguments that might have been but were not presented and resolved on an earlier appeal; and (2) the Legislature did not intend to overturn the long-established law governing equitable relief for violations of penal law when it amended Civil Code section 3369, but rather maintained the rule that a taxpayer action will not lie to enforce a Penal Code provision. View "Leider v. Lewis" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the application of the general rule that a litigant may appeal an adverse ruling only after the trial court renders a final judgment when a trial court has granted a petition for writ of administrative mandamus and remanded the matter for proceedings before an administrative body. The court of appeal dismissed Defendant’s appeal, concluding that the superior court’s order remanding the matter to the administrative body was not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of Defendant’s appeal and remanded the matter to the court of appeal with directions to reinstate the appeal, holding that because the issuance of the writ marked the end of the writ proceeding in the trial court, even if it did not definitely resolve the dispute between the parties, the trial court’s order was a final judgment. View "Dhillon v. John Muir Health" on Justia Law

Defendant was involved in an accidental collision with a twelve-year-old boy riding on a scooter. Defendant stopped and checked on the boy. Defendant drove off when he saw the boy loaded into an ambulance. Defendant pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an injury accident in violation of Cal. Veh. Code 20001(a). The trial court sentenced Defendant to three years in prison and ordered him to pay $425,654.68 to the victim as restitution for injuries suffered as a result of the accident. The court of appeal reversed the restitution order, concluding that the trial court erred in fixing the amount of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed. Cal. Penal Code 1202.4 provides that a defendant must pay restitution to the victim for losses incurred “as a result of the commission of a crime.” Here, Defendant’s crime was not being involved in a traffic accident but, rather, was leaving the scene of the accident without presenting identification or rendering aid. Accordingly, the trial court was authorized to order restitution for injuries that were caused or exacerbated by Defendant’s criminal flight from the scene of the accident, but it was not authorized to award restitution for injuries resulting from the underlying accident that involved no criminal wrongdoing. View "People v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered questions certified to it by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the construction of the state’s day of rest statutes, which prohibit an employer from causing his or her employees to work more than “six days in seven” but do not apply “when the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day thereof.” The Court answered (1) periods of more than six consecutive days of work that stretch across more than one workweek are no per se prohibited; (2) the exemption for employees working shifts of six hours or less applies only to those who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the week; and (3) an employer “causes” its employee to go without a day of rest when it induces the employee to forgo rest to which he or she is entitled. View "Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a claim alleging a discriminatory decision is not subject to a motion to strike simply because it contests an action or decision that was arrived at following speech of petition activity or that was thereafter communicated by means of speech or petitioning activity. Plaintiff, a tenure-track assistant professor, filed suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for national origin discrimination and failure to receive a discrimination-free workplace after his application for tenure was denied. The Board of Trustees of the California State University responded with a motion to strike, arguing that the communications that led up to the decision to deny Plaintiff tenure were protected activities. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “a claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.” View "Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University" on Justia Law

Petitioner committed murder when he was sixteen years old and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The sentencing court did not give due consideration to the factors in Miller v. Alabama in imposing this sentence. Petitioner did not pursue an appeal. Here, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a resentencing hearing at which the court would properly integrate the Miller factors into its sentencing calculus. The superior court granted habeas corpus relief. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Petitioner could seek recall of his sentence and resentencing to a term of life with the opportunity for parole pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1170(d)(2), which remedied any constitutional defect in Petitioner’s sentence and therefore precluded habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 1170(d)(2) does not provide an adequate remedy at law for Miller error, and Petitioner may obtain a Miller resentencing as a form of habeas corpus relief. Remanded for a resentencing hearing. View "In re Kristopher Kirchner" on Justia Law

Section 391.7’s prefiling process applies to self-represented plaintiffs who have been declared vexatious litigants. Plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer action against Defendant. Defendant largely represented herself in the case. The trial court issued a writ of possession. Defendant appealed. In a separately filed action in which Defendant was the plaintiff and appellant, the Court of Appeal declared Defendant a vexatious litigant plaintiff. The court also entered a prefiling order under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 391.7(c) that prohibited Defendant from filing any new litigation in California courts. In the instant case, the trial court’s appellate division dismissed Defendant’s consolidated appeals. Defendant petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing the appellate division in the consolidated appeals to decide the appeals on their merits. The Court of Appeal ordered the appellate division to vacate its order dismissing Defendant’s appeals, concluding that a defendant’s status as a vexatious litigant plaintiff in one matter cannot limit that same defendant’s ability to pursue her appeal in an action she did not initiate as a plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that 391.7’s prefiling requirements do not apply to declared vexatious litigants who are self-represented defendants appealing from an adverse judgment in litigation they did not initiate. View "John v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with the special circumstances of killing a witness, murder, in the commission of kidnapping, and lying in weight. The jury also found Defendant guilty of kidnapping, rape, and dissuading a witness. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death for the murder conviction. The trial court imposed a judgment of death. The Supreme Court reversed the lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding for insufficient evidence but otherwise affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support the lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding, but no other prejudicial error occurred during the guilt phase of trial; and (2) there was no prejudicial error during the penalty phase of trial. View "Poeple v. Becerrada" on Justia Law