Justia California Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with oral copulation of an unconscious person (count 1) and oral copulation of an intoxicated person (count 2), based on the same act. A jury convicted Defendant of both charges. The court of appeal vacated the conviction on count 2 upon its understanding that the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Craig precluded multiple convictions under these circumstances. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Craig is distinguishable; and (2) Defendant may properly be convicted of, although not punished for, both oral copulation of an unconscious person and oral copulation of an intoxicated person. View "People v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several offenses, including robbery and theft. The convictions stemmed from Defendant's acquisition of gift cards through his false representation that he was using valid payment cards to purchase the gift cards. Defendant challenged his robbery convictions, contending that the type of theft that constitutes a "felonious taking," an element of robbery, was theft by larceny only and not theft by false pretenses, the type of theft that Defendant committed. The court of appeal affirmed Defendant's robbery convictions, holding that theft by false pretenses can satisfy the "felonious taking" requirement of robbery. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that theft by false pretenses cannot satisfy the "felonious taking" element of robbery. Remanded.View "People v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations of burglary-murder and torture-murder. After the jury was unable to agree on a sentence, the trial court declared a mistrial. At the second penalty phase trial, the trial court entered a judgment of death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings regarding pretrial issues; (2) the trial court did not prejudicially err in its rulings during the guilt phase of trial; and (3) the trial court did not prejudicially err in its rulings during the second penalty phase.View "People v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Kevin Reilly was originally committed as a sexually violent predator (SVP) in 2000. In 2008, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a petition for recommitment. Two evaluators evaluated Reilly under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) and concluded he was an SVP. The Office of Administrative Law subsequently determined that the initial evaluations supporting the petition were conducted under an assessment protocol that amounted to an invalid regulation. The evaluators subsequently re-evaluated Reilly based on In re Ronje, this time concluding that he no longer met the criteria for commitment as an SVP. The court of appeal subsequently dismissed the SVPA commitment petition based on Ronje, which ordered replacement evaluations in these circumstances without requiring a determination that the underlying mistake in the assessment protocol amounted to material error. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Ronje decision was error; (2) an alleged SVP must show that any fault that did occur under the assessment protocol contained a material error; and (3) the court of appeal erroneously dismissed the petition against Reilly without requiring a finding of material error.View "Reilly v. Superior Court of Orange County" on Justia Law

Sheriff's deputies came to the home of Shane Hayes in response to a call from a neighbor. When the deputies arrived, Hayes's girlfriend informe them that Hayes was suicidal. The deputies then entered the house, where Hayes came toward them with a large knife raised in his right hand. The deputies simultaneously drew their guns and fired at Hayes, who died from the gunshot wounds. Hayes's daughter filed a complaint in federal district court against the County of San Diego and the deputies, alleging three federal law claims and two state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims, finding that the deputies owed Plaintiff no duty of care with respect to their preshooting conduct. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to answer a question of state law. The Court answered by holding that, under California negligence law, liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force if the conduct and decisions leading to the use of deadly force show, as part of the totality of the circumstances, that the use of deadly force was unreasonable.View "Hayes v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

A male supervisor employed by a franchisee allegedly subjected a female subordinate to sexual harassment while working together at the franchisee’s pizza store. Plaintiff, the victim, sued the franchisor, the franchisee, and the harasser, arguing that the franchisor could be held vicariously liable for the harasser’s misconduct. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the franchisor, concluding that the requisite employment and agency relationship did not exist between the franchisor and franchisee in this case. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and granted summary judgment in the franchisor’s favor, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the franchisor did not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding it vicariously liable for workplace injuries allegedly inflicted by the victim's supervisor. View "Patterson v. Domino’’s Pizza, LLC " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted criminal threat. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the crime of attempted criminal threat requires a finding that the intended threat reasonably could have caused sustained fear under the circumstances. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that an attempted criminal threat does not require such a reasonableness element. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant who utters words to a victim with a subjective intent to threaten may only be convicted of the crime of attempted criminal threat if there is sufficient proof that the intended threat under the circumstances was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear; and (2) Defendant’s threats under the circumstances were sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear. View "People v. Chandler" on Justia Law

In assessing the value of electric power plants for purposes of property taxation, assessors may not include the value of intangible assets and rights in the value of taxable property. An electric company purchased "emission reduction credits" (ERCs), which the company had to purchase to obtain authorization to construct an electric power plant and to operate it at certain air-pollutant emission levels. These ERCs constituted intangible rights for property taxation purposes. In assessing the value of the power plant using the replacement cost method, the State Board of Equalization (Board) estimated the cost of replacing the ERCs. In also using an income approach in assessing the plant, the Board failed to attribute a portion or the plant's income stream to the ERCs and to deduct that value from the plant's projected income stream prior to taxation. In analyzing the Board's valuation of the power plant, the Supreme Court held (1) the Board improperly taxed the power company's ERCs when it added their replacement cost to the power plant's taxable value; and (2) the Board was not required to deduct a value attributable to the ERCs under an income approach. Remanded.View "Elk Hills Power, LLC v. Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Public school students with diabetes who cannot self-administer insulin are entitled under federal law to have it administered to them during the school day at no cost. In 2007, the State Department of Education (Department) issued a legal advisory authorizing unlicensed school personnel to administer insulin. The American Nurses Association and other trade organizations representing registered and school nurses (collectively, Nurses) challenged the document by filing this action seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate, asserting that the Department's advice condoned the unauthorized practice of nursing. The superior court declared the advisory invalid to the extent it authorized unlicensed school personnel to administer insulin. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that California law expressly permits trained, unlicensed school personnel to administer prescription medications such as insulin in accordance with the written statements of a student's treating physician and parents and expressly exempts persons who thus carry out physicians' medical orders from laws prohibiting the unauthorized practice of nursing.View "Am. Nurses Ass'n v. Torlakson" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendants Stanley Bryant, Donald Franklin Smith, and Leroy Wheeler were convicted of various crimes relating to the fatal shooting of four individuals. Bryant and Wheeler were convicted of four counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder, and Smith was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of second degree murder, and one count of attempted murder. The jury returned verdicts of death. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, holding that any error or any error assumed for the sake of argument that occurred during the pretrial proceedings, the guilt phase, or the penalty phase were harmless. View "People v. Bryant" on Justia Law