Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After the police saw Ayon commit two minor traffic violations, they stopped him in his car and detained him until a narcotics dog arrived, 12 minutes and 45 seconds into the stop. After the dog indicated the presence of drugs, the police searched the car, wherein they found cocaine, methamphetamine, currency, and a scale. The trial court denied Ayon’s motion to suppress, rejecting his argument that the police unlawfully prolonged the duration of the stop in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.The court of appeal reversed. “A careful reading of the record shows the stop was actually part of a preexisting drug investigation, and the police used the traffic infractions as a pretext for the stop.” While that fact does not by itself render the search unconstitutional, based on the evidence in the record viewed objectively—including police body camera videos of the stop—the police unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop. One officer’s body camera continued to record for a total of 61 minutes, at which time the stop and search were still underway. View "People v. Ayon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff California Business & Industrial Alliance appealed dismissal after a trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, without leave to amend. Plaintiff, a lobbying group for small and midsized businesses in California, filed this action seeking a judicial declaration that the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) was unconstitutional under various theories, and an injunction forbidding defendant from implementing or enforcing PAGA. On appeal, plaintiff asserted a single theory: that PAGA violated California’s separation of powers doctrine by allowing private citizens to seek civil penalties on the state’s behalf without the executive branch exercising sufficient prosecutorial discretion. The Court of Appeal rejected this theory for two reasons: (1) the California Supreme Court found in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), that “PAGA does not violate the principle of separation of powers under the California Constitution;” and (2) even if Iskanian did not require this result, the Court would reach it anyway through application of California’s preexisting separation of powers doctrine. View "California Business & Industrial Alliance v. Becerra" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of the involuntary manslaughter of his girlfriend, holding that no violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), occurred in this case.During trial, the county medical examiner opined that the victim had been beaten to death, and the district court relied on that testimony in arguing that Defendant beat his girlfriend to death, thereby committing first-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court's failure to disclose certain portions of redacted memoranda written by the office of the district attorney as material relevant to impeachment of the medical examiner's trial testimony. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that, although portions of the redacted memoranda qualified as impeachment material under Brady, the failure to disclose them was not material to the outcome at trial. View "People v. Deleoz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this defamation case against Defendants based on allegations that Defendants falsely told several reporters that plaintiff had provided explicit nude photographs of one of the Defendants to the National Enquirer. In response, Defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (the anti-SLAPP statute). To prove his case, Plaintiff provided his own declaration stating that numerous reporters had informed him of Defendants’ accusations against him. The trial court precluded admission of the reporters' statements under hearsay rules. The court then granted judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed.On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendants. The reporters' statements involved statements that were not witnessed by Plaintiff. Thus, they were presented by Plaintiff to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Thus, the trial court properly applied the rules against hearsay to exclude the reporters' statements. View "Sanchez v. Bezos" on Justia Law

In 2018, Cuenca pleaded guilty to false imprisonment of his girlfriend and to a related charge of resisting arrest resulting in serious bodily injury to an officer. The court imposed a split sentence: three years of formal probation plus county jail time that amounted to a single day, net of credit for time served. Two years later, while on probation, Cuenca was charged with assault and criminal threats arising out of a physical altercation with a male friend, A jury found Cuenca guilty of a lesser offense of assault. The court revoked probation and sentenced Cuenca to county jail for an aggregate term running a total of five years and two months for the three felony convictions in both cases. Cuenca pursued consolidated appeals.The court of appeal affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting an argument that Napa County’s failure to grant county jail inmates the same opportunities that state prison inmates have to earn rehabilitation program credits violated his constitutional right to equal protection. Napa County need not put forward evidence of the actual reasons justifying its policy choice; the challenged classification is presumed to be rational. View "In re Cuenca" on Justia Law

A family who owned and operated a medical practice ("Defendants") suffered $25,000 in damages when a pipe in an adjacent office started leaking. The family hired a lawyer ("Plaintiff") to help them compel the neighboring office owner to pay for the damages. When the neighboring office owner refused to pay, Plaintiff recommended they sue. Two of the three family members agreed, but Plaintiff listed all three parties as plaintiffs. Over the course of the litigation, Defendants paid Plaintiff nearly $68,000 in legal fees. Defendants asked Plaintiff to cease all nonessential work on the case while another family member, a barred attorney, attempted to resolve the matter. Plaintiff refused to allow Defendants' family member to help until she formally substituted in and then settled the case.Plaintiff sued Defendants for breach of contract. Defendants cross-claimed that Plaintiff breached his fiduciary duties, committed malpractice and failed to execute a written fee agreement. Plaintiff then filed his own cross-complaint naming Defendants and their family member-lawyer and Defendants filed this SLAPP action to strike portions of Plaintiff's cross-complaint.The trial court granted the family-member lawyer's motion but denied Defendants' motions. On appeal, the Second Appellate District reversed the trial court's denial of the Defendant's SLAPP motions and remanded for the court to determine whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the causes of action against each individual Defendant. View "Bowen v. Lin" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Christopher Whitmore was convicted by jury of rape, false imprisonment and other crimes. After trial, Whitmore made a Marsden motion to replace his appointed counsel; he also moved for a new trial. Because of circumstances related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Whitmore was not physically present in the courtroom when the trial court heard those motions in late December 2020; instead, Whitmore reluctantly appeared via video for the hearing and at sentencing. The court denied Whitmore’s motions and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. On appeal, Whitmore contended the trial court erred in overruling his demand to be personally present in the courtroom for the hearing on his posttrial motions and at sentencing. He also contended the court abused its discretion in denying his Marsden motion, and that insufficient evidence supported his conviction for false imprisonment. In its original opinion, filed on April 29, 2022, the Court of Appeal found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. Whitmore petitioned for rehearing, arguing that among other things: while his appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Penal Code section 1170 (b) to make the middle term the presumptive sentence unless certain circumstances exist. Whitmore contended those amendments applied retroactively to him and required remand for resentencing. The Court granted rehearing, which vacated its previous opinion by operation of law. After considering the matter, the Court agreed with Whitmore that the recent amendments to section 1170(b) applied here. Accordingly, the Court vacated the imposed sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. View "California v. Whitmore" on Justia Law

After having his first degree murder conviction reduced to second degree murder based on instructional error, defendant-appellant Matthew Basler filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. Following an evidentiary hearing at which Basler was not present, the trial court denied the petition, ruling: (1) Basler was ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 (a) because he was not convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory, but was convicted of first degree premeditated murder; and (2) Basler could still be convicted of murder even after the changes made to sections 188 and 189 effective January 1, 2019. The court further found “as an independent factfinder” beyond a reasonable doubt that Basler committed first degree premeditated murder and that he harbored premeditated intent before killing the victim. On appeal, Basler contends the trial court erred by its ruling. The State conceded the trial court reversibly erred by failing to address the merits of Basler's petition as to his attempted murder conviction, and Senate Bill No. 775 required a remand for that determination. The Court of Appeal accepted that concession, and further concluded Basler had a constitutional right to be present at his section 1170.95 evidentiary hearing or competently waive his presence. The case was remanded for a new evidentiary hearing on Basler's murder conviction. View "California v. Basler" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ruman Abdul Richardson acted as the getaway driver for a robbery. During the robbery, one of his coparticipants shot the victim. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder on a felony murder theory. The trial court denied petitioner’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95. After review, the Court of Appeal held there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that petitioner was a major participant in the underlying robbery. Hence, judgment was affirmed. View "California v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seven adults who claimed they were molested by a priest when they were children, brought suit against The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and related parties ("Defendants"). The Plaintiffs' claims were that the Defendants ratified the assaults and acted negligently in failing to supervise the priest who committed the assaults.In response, Defendants moved to strike the complaint, claiming that some of the acts that allegedly ratified the priest's conduct, as well as those serving as the basis for the allegations of negligence, constituted speech and litigation conduct that was protected under California's anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). The district court rejected Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion.The Second Appellate District affirmed. As to the ratification claims, the court held that Defendants mischaracterized Plaintifffs' complaint, "cherry-picking allegations of litigation conduct, and, without support, suggesting that they are the only allegations incorporated by reference into the sexual abuse cause of action."As to the negligence claims, Defendants too narrowly construed Plaintiffs' complaint, focusing only on what Defendants claim was protected speech. Any allegations in Plaintiffs' complaint that may have been "conclusory" when taken out of context, were supported by factual allegations earlier in the complaint. View "Ratcliff v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A." on Justia Law