Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, lawyers and their law firms, alleging defamation and other causes of action. The action arose from statements two lawyers made on television and radio programs about a pending lawsuit involving bribery and kickbacks in connection with Pacific Hospital of Long Beach. The court granted defendants' special motion to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), Code Civ. Proc., 425.16. The court, reviewing de novo, concluded that the action arose out of activity protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have not established a probability of success on the merits of their claims because the challenged statements are protected under the fair report privilege. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Healthsmart Pacific v. Kabateck" on Justia Law

Oswaldo Gonzalez appealed a postjudgment order granting a petition under Penal Code sections 1203.2 (b), and 3455(a), to revoke his postrelease community supervision (PRCS). The trial court found that Gonzalez, who was homeless, violated the terms and conditions of PRCS by failing to report his change of residence after he was released from a facility in which he had been held. The court ordered Gonzalez to serve 180 days in jail, with credit for time served, and reinstated PRCS. After review of this matter, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred by finding Gonzalez violated the condition of PRCS that he report a change of residence. "The lack of a definition of residence is a glaring omission in the PRCS Act that leaves open issues about the reporting obligations of those persons subject to PRCS who, like Gonzalez, are homeless. The Sex Offender Registration Act, in contrast, not only defines 'residence' but defines 'transient' and sets forth a means by which transients can comply with registration requirements. We respectfully urge the Legislature to amend the PRCS Act to define 'residence' and to address the issue of the obligations of homeless persons subject to PRCS to report residence and changes in residence." View "California v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, mandated reporters, filed suit alleging that the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA), Pen. Code, 11164 et seq., violates their patients' constitutional right to privacy. CANRA requires certain individuals, including family therapists and clinical counselors, to report to law enforcement or child welfare agencies patients who disclose that they have developed, downloaded, streamed, or accessed child pornography through electronic or digital media. The court concluded that the privacy interest of patients who communicate that they watch child pornography is outweighed by the state's interest in identifying and protecting sexually abused children; there is no fundamental right at issue in this case; and CANRA satisfies the rational basis test for determining the validity of a legislative enactment. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint. View "Mathews v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Town of Apple Valley (Town) and real-party-in-interest and appellant Wal-mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart) appealed the grant of the motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-respondent Gabriel Hernandez. This case involved a measure passed by the Town’s electorate in a special election (Initiative) that amended the general plan to allow for a 30-acre commercial development, which would include a Walmart Supercenter. Walmart provided a gift to Town to pay for the election and Town accepted the payment by adopting a memorandum of understanding (MOU) at a regular council meeting held on August 13, 2013. Hernandez argued the agenda for the Town’s council meeting failed to provide the proper notice of the actions to be taken at the meeting, e.g., that the Town council would vote to send the Initiative to the voters and approving the MOU that accepted the gift from Walmart to pay for the special election. Further, Hernandez alleged that although Walmart was not specifically named in the Initiative, it was clear from the other ballot materials that Walmart was identified within the meaning of article II, section 12 rendering the Initiative unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Motion finding the MOU and Initiative were void and invalid. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Motion was properly granted on the violation of the Brown Act, which invalidated the special election on the Initiative. Since it was likely that the matter would again be placed on the ballot or voted on by the Town council, the Court of Appeal also found that the Initiative as written did not violate article II, section 12. The award of costs was reversed as the memorandum of costs was filed late without a showing by counsel that such late filing was due to mistake of law, inadvertence, or surprise. The attorney fee award was affirmed. View "Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley" on Justia Law

William Cady drove his vehicle at an excessive and unsafe speed while intoxicated, resulting in an accident that killed three of his passengers and injured two others. A jury found Cady guilty of: three counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (with the further finding that he personally inflicted great bodily injury); one count of driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more causing injury; and one count of driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug causing injury. The trial court sentenced Cady to 18 years in prison. Cady raised two contentions on appeal: (1) that the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury was a lesser included offense of the crime of driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug causing injury, so that he should not have been convicted; and (2) for the charge of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the trial court prejudicially erred in not sua sponte giving the jury the option of convicting him of the lesser included offense of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated for those counts. The Court of Appeal concluded that the conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury was not a lesser included offense of the driving under the combined influence of alcohol and a drug causing injury (for which Cady was convicted in a separate count). The Court also conclude that there was no merit to Cady's contention that the trial court erred by failing to instruct on vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as a lesser included offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Cady's convictions. View "California v. Cady" on Justia Law

California firefighters and their union sought to compel the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to continue to enforce Government Code 20909, and allow eligible public employees to purchase at cost up to five years of nonqualifying service credit (airtime) to increase pension benefits paid in retirement, by increasing their service credit. The option was eliminated as of January 1, 2013 under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA), a reform measure designed to strengthen the state’s public pension system and ensure its ongoing solvency. (Government Code 7522.46, 20909(g)). Plaintiffs argued that elimination of the option violated the California Constitution contracts clause (Art. I, section 9), so that CalPERS lacked authority to refuse to consider applications for the credit. The trial court and court of appeal rejected the argument. Modification of the statute governing airtime service credit was wholly reasonable and carried “some material relation to the theory of a pension system and its successful operation.” Plaintiffs are entitled only to a “reasonable” pension, not one providing fixed or definite benefits immune from modification or elimination by the governing body, and did not establish that elimination of their right to purchase airtime credit cost them their right to a reasonable pension. View "Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees' Retirement System" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Tony San Nicolas appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of mandate challenging his placement in the California Department of Justice's sex offender tracking program. He contended the court erroneously determined his Washington state conviction for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes qualified under the “least adjudicated elements” test as a registrable offense in California. The Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the judgment. View "San Nicolas v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of kidnapping during the commission of a carjacking and kidnapping to commit robbery, committed when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to seven years to life in prison in 1999. In 2014 and 2016 the Board of Parole Hearings denied him parole. He sought habeas relief, arguing the Board’s decisions, based on his purported lack of insight into his criminal conduct and his prison disciplinary history, was arbitrary, in violation of due process, and unsupported by evidence of his current dangerousness. He also argued the Board’s failure to set a base term and an adjusted base term for him in accordance with a 2013 stipulated order constituted a denial of his rights to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The court of appeal granted relief and remanded. The evidence relied on by the Board at both hearings was not rationally indicative of current dangerousness, so its decisions violate due process. The court noted that the Board recently set a base term and adjusted base term, rendering that claim moot. View "In re Perez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the NCAA for seven causes of action and the NCAA exercised a peremptory challenge to the trial judge assigned to the case at the time. The case was reassigned to a different jurist. The NCAA then moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. In this petition for writ of mandate, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling on a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute and requests the court to vacate its order accepting the postappeal peremptory challenge. The court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, subdivision (a)(2) allows a party to exercise a second peremptory challenge only after prevailing in an appeal from a final judgment, but not following reversal of an interim decision. The court granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its order accepting the NCAA's peremptory challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6, and enter a new order rejecting the challenge. View "McNair v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Tommie Lee Kindall guilty of felony battery causing serious bodily injury, misdemeanor assault, and misdemeanor domestic violence. After the verdicts, but before a court trial on the prior prison term enhancements, another trial court reduced three of defendant’s alleged prior convictions to misdemeanors under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (the Act). The trial court presiding over defendant’s case subsequently found after a court trial that defendant had served seven separate prior prison terms, three of which were based on the three drug convictions that had already been reduced. The court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years for the felony battery count, and enhanced the sentence by seven years for the seven prior prison terms. The court ordered defendant to serve nine years in county jail, followed by two years of supervised release. Defendant appealed, arguing: (1) his trial attorney was ineffective because he did not object to prosecutorial misconduct in argument; (2) the three prior prison term enhancements based on sentences for felonies previously reduced to misdemeanors should have been stricken; and (3) the restitution fine is incorrectly set forth in the abstract of judgment. The State and the Court of Appeal agreed that the fine was incorrectly listed in the abstract of judgment. In the published portion of its opinion, the Court of Appeal also agreed with defendant’s second point, that the three prior convictions were no longer previous felony convictions at the time the trial court adjudicated them as such in order to find the prior prison term allegations true. The Court modified the judgment and affirmed, directing the trial court to amend and correct abstract of judgment. View "California v. Kindall" on Justia Law