Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted defendant-appellant William Johnson of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and hit and run with injury. The jury also found true two enhancement allegations: defendant fled the scene; and the collision resulted in a fatality. The jury did not reach a unanimous verdict on the other charged count, second degree murder, and the trial court granted a mistrial with respect to that count. On retrial with respect to count 1, a new jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. In this appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred during his retrial by not informing the jury that he had been convicted in the first trial of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and that the error required reversal of his second degree murder conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court’s instructions to the jury for defendant’s retrial were erroneous in several respects, and the second degree murder conviction should have been reversed. View "California v. Johnson" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Mangal Singh Sanghera guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (stabbing instrument) and found that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. Defendant was sentenced to a state prison term of five years. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal was that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to exclude prior misconduct impeachment evidence under Evidence Code section 352.1 He further argued that a longstanding precedent requiring a defendant to testify to preserve this claim for appellate review did not apply here because he informed the trial court he would not testify if the impeachment evidence was allowed and the trial court failed to consider the impact on his decision to testify in denying his motion to exclude the evidence. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that because defendant did not testify, he did not preserve the purported error and his contention was procedurally barred from review. View "California v. Sanghera" on Justia Law

NSSF and SAAMI filed the underlying action for declaratory relief seeking to enjoin Penal Code section 31910, subdivision (b)(7)(A) on the ground that it is impossible to comply with dual placement microstamping requirements. Section 31910, subdivision (b)(7)(A), provides that, commencing January 1, 2010, a semiautomatic pistol is an “‘unsafe handgun’” if “it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired .…” The trial court granted the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend on the ground that the separation of powers doctrine precluded plaintiffs' action. Because judgment was granted on the pleadings, the court must accept the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded facts. Therefore, the court must accept plaintiffs' claim that it is impossible to effectively microstamp the required characters on any part of a semiautomatic pistol other than the firing pin. The court rejected the State's position that stamping the characters in two places on the firing pin would comply with the statute. The court concluded that plaintiffs have the right to present evidence to attempt to prove their claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "National Shooting Sports Foundation v. State of California" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Paul Roger Moore of first degree murder based exclusively on circumstantial evidence that he built and planted a victim-activated bomb in an irrigation pump he knew the farm foreman and eventual victim, Roberto Ayala, would activate. On appeal, Moore argued his first cousin Peter had the motive and violent disposition to murder Roberto. ‘[Defendant’s] narrative of family intrigue has all the earmarks of a Shakespearean tragedy and makes for compelling drama.” On the narrow legal questions presented, the Court of Appeal found substantial evidence to support the verdict and no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence or denying the defense request for surrebuttal closing argument, and therefore affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Moore" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant James Allen guilty of escape for leaving his mother’s house, which was his assigned place of confinement under an alternative custody agreement. In challenging his escape conviction, defendant argued there was no substantial evidence that his failure to return to his mother’s house was willful. The Court of Appeals concluded defendant’s contention lacked merit. Accordingly, it affirmed his conviction. View "California v. Allen" on Justia Law

During a trial on multiple counts of sexual offenses against a child, defense counsel informed the court that he had a doubt as to defendant-appellant Earl Lewis Houser, Jr.'s mental competence to stand trial. The trial court appointed a psychologist to assess defendant's mental competence and to advise the court whether there was substantial evidence that defendant was not competent to stand trial. Following a hearing at which the psychologist testified and was cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, the trial court concluded that defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. The trial resumed and defendant was convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals concluded after its review of the trial court record here and the California Supreme Court's ruling in "California v. Pennington," (66 Cal.2d 508 (1967)) that the threshold question for appeal was whether the expert's testimony was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's competence and thus triggering his constitutional right to a full competency hearing, not whether defendant was or was not mentally competent. The Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to raise such a doubt. Because a trial court had “no power to proceed with the trial once a doubt arises as to the sanity of the defendant,” the error was prejudicial per se and warranted reversal of the conviction. View "California v. Houser" on Justia Law

Defendant Andrew Garcia was serving 35 years to life after a jury convicted him as an adult of attempted murder and other charges for robbing and shooting a woman in the face when he was 15 years old. In this appeal, defendant argued, the State conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that a three-year enhancement for great bodily harm under Penal Code section 12022.7 was unauthorized and should have been stayed. This reduced his sentence to 32 years to life. Defendant also contended his overall sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the sentencing court did not comply with the requirements in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012)) and "California v. Caballero," (55 Cal.4th 262 (2012)) that it consider his youth and consequent reduced culpability and impose a sentence reflecting these considerations. The Court of Appeal concluded that while the sentence passed constitutional muster because he “shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing” pursuant to section 3051. View "California v. Garcia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant-appellant Brett Thiel of elder abuse with force likely to cause great bodily harm or death; elder abuse; witness intimidation; and resisting an officer. The jury also found true that defendant, in the commission of count 1, did personally inflict great bodily injury on a person 70 years of age or older. The court sentenced defendant to three years' probation, which included one year in a residential mental health facility. On appeal, defendant argued the trial court improperly instructed the jury concerning the extent to which it could consider evidence of mental incapacity in determining whether he harbored the requisite criminal intent to be convicted of elder abuse in counts 1 and 2. Defendant further argued defense counsel was ineffective by not requesting an instruction that defendant's alleged mental incapacity could negate the requisite intent he contends was required to support such convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Thiel" on Justia Law

The trial court recused the entire Orange County District Attorney's (OCDA) office from prosecuting Scott Dekraai's penalty phase after he pled guilty to eight counts of murder. The court did so after two evidentiary hearings where it heard from 39 witnesses over six months. The court concluded the OCDA had a conflict of interest with the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD or deputy sheriff) that prevented the OCDA from fairly prosecuting the penalty phase. The Attorney General appealed that ruling, arguing OCSD was to blame for the misconduct and the OCDA did not have a conflict of interest. The sole issue for the Court of Appeal's review was whether the trial court erred by recusing the entire OCDA's office from prosecuting Dekraai's penalty phase. After that review, the Court concluded it was well within the court's discretion to recuse the entire OCDA's office from prosecuting the penalty phase because the OCDA indeed had a disqualifying conflict of interest. Accordingly, the Court affirmed recusal. View "California v. Dekraai" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Philip Mejia appealed his conviction for torture, spousal rape, spousal abuse, and criminal threats. The Court of Appeal rejected his contention that the court should have conducted a hearing pursuant to "California v. Marsden," (2 Cal.3d 118 (1970)) based on defendant's statements during a hearing on his request to represent himself and his contentions concerning the improper admission of evidence. The Court agreed, however, that the trial court erred in imposing an unstayed sentence on count 3. Accordingly, the case was remanded with directions to stay imposition of that sentence. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Mejia" on Justia Law