Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a writer, filed suit against the CAA parties for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, alleging they had mishandled their representation of him in several different ways.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying the CAA parties' special motion to strike allegations in the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. Although the court agreed that the challenged conduct arises from protected speech activity, the court concluded that when the context and content of the specific allegedly wrongful statements are considered, their degree of connection to a topic of public interest is insufficient to warrant protection under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4). In this case, the creative aspects of his work that plaintiff claims were misappropriated, privately communicated to a targeted audience of one, did not contribute to the public conversation about a matter of public interest. View "Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC" on Justia Law

A police officer spotted defendant Enrique Jimenez and his two teenaged sons by some trash cans in a field. They jumped into an SUV and drove away. The officer, believing they had committed illegal dumping, tried to pull them over. Instead, defendant dropped off his sons near his house, then led the police in a pursuit. When the police took a closer look at the trash cans, they found that one contained a dead body. Defendant confessed that he had intentionally stabbed the victim to death. Defendant was convicted by jury of first degree murder with an enhancement for personal use of a deadly weapon; recklessly evading an officer; and two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer. He was sentenced to a total of 29 years to life, plus fines, fees, and ancillary orders. On appeal, defendant contended, among other things, that his confession was involuntary because the police induced it by threatening to charge his sons with the murder. After review of the trial court record, the Court of Appeal agreed: the interrogating officer told defendant that he knew defendant’s sons were innocent of murder, but he intended to charge them anyway — unless defendant confessed. "We cannot say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if defendant’s confession had been excluded, he would still have been convicted of first degree murder. Indeed, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have found him guilty of a lesser offense, such as second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter, or acquitted him on this count." The judgment was reversed solely with respect to the conviction on count 1 (murder) and with respect to the sentence; in all other respects, it was affirmed. On remand, if the State did not bring defendant to a new trial on count 1 in a timely manner, then the Court's remittitur would be deemed to modify the verdict by striking the conviction on count 1 and the trial court would have to promptly resentence defendant. View "California v. Jimenez" on Justia Law

A political consultant designed two campaign mailers that were distributed to voters in a local city council election. The mailers included statements about a local real estate developer and his litigation history with the city, and linked the developer to certain candidates. The developer sued the political consultant for libel based on allegedly false statements about him in the mailers, and the political consultant in turn filed a special motion to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that although the complaint arose from protected conduct, the developer demonstrated a probability of prevailing. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed and therefore affirmed the order denying the anti-SLAPP motion. View "Edward v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Benzler was sentenced in 2014 for offenses he committed when he was 18 years old. He appealed the summary denial of his motion for a "Franklin" hearing under California Penal Code section 1203.01, contending he satisfied the eligibility criteria for such a hearing laid out in In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (2019), and did not previously have an opportunity to present evidence related to his status as a juvenile offender. To this, the Court of Appeal concurred, reversed the trial court’s order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "California v. Benzler" on Justia Law

Defendants Jamie Ramirez and Albert Villa participated in a beating of another inmate while in custody at Southwest Detention Center. A jury convicted them of one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. The jury also found true the allegation that defendants committed the assault “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with” a criminal street gang for purposes of the STEP Act gang enhancement. On appeal, defendants argued the record contained insufficient evidence to support their gang enhancements. During trial, the prosecution presented evidence that defendants and the inmate who orchestrated the assault each belonged to different Riverside County gangs before they were incarcerated but that they committed the assault for the benefit of the prison gang “La Eme” (also known as the Mexican Mafia). Despite this theory, the prosecution proved that the three Riverside County gangs satisfied the STEP Act’s definition of a “criminal street gang,” but didn’t present such proof for La Eme, the gang the assault was related to. Because the record contained no nexus between the assault and a proven gang, Court of Appeal concluded the enhancements could not stand. It therefore vacated that aspect of the jury’s verdict but otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

During an altercation outside a bar after last call, defendant-appellant Charles Waxlax stabbed Erik Kimbler in the back with a military-grade knife. Kimbler suffered serious injuries but survived. At trial, the jury rejected Waxlax’s claim of self-defense and convicted him of the four crimes the prosecution had charged him with: attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, and attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime. Defendant was sentenced 11 years in prison, consisting of nine years for the attempted murder conviction and two years for the dissuading conviction. The judge imposed, but stayed under Penal Code section 654, three-year sentences on the two assault convictions. On appeal, Defendant argued the omission of three self-defense related jury instructions required reversal of his murder and assault convictions: (1) an instruction on the doctrine of transferred self-defense; (2) CALCRIM No. 3470, which defined self-defense for all nonhomicide offenses, and (3) a pinpoint instruction that his specific fear of imminent danger arose from his belief he was being robbed. Defendant also argued his dual assault convictions at the very least violated Penal Code section 954 because force-likely assault and assault with a deadly weapon were different statements of the same offense and his charges were based on the same conduct - his single act of stabbing Kimbler. The Court of Appeal found Defendant's claims of instructional error meritless, but agreed his dual assault convictions violated section 954. The Court therefore vacated the force-likely assault conviction in count 2 and struck the fees associated with that count. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "California v. Waxlax" on Justia Law

Washington was convicted of five sexually violent offenses that occurred in 1984. Before Washington’s 2014 release, the state sought to commit Washington as a sexually violent predator (SVP) under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, The trial court declared Washington to be an SVP and committed him to the California Department of State Hospitals for an indeterminate term.The court of appeal remanded, first rejecting Washington’s argument that the trial court violated the Act by failing to advise him of his right to a jury trial and to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right. The Act provides that trial will be “before the court without a jury” if the defendant or attorney “does not demand a jury trial.” The statute does not provide for advisement of the alleged SVP’s right to a jury trial. Washington also argued that failure to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial violated his right to due process, and the Act’s failure to provide protections for his jury trial right, unlike statutes governing other types of civil commitments, violated his equal protection rights. The court questioned whether the dangerousness of SVP’s is a constitutionally valid justification for differential treatment with respect to procedural protections of their jury trial right but remanded for evaluation of that challenge. View "People v. Washington" on Justia Law

Since he was 19 years old, defendant John Vasquez had been continuously been on probation, parole, or incarcerated. At age 26, Vasquez pleaded guilty to two armed robberies and went to prison for 13 years. At age 42, while still on parole, Vasquez committed two recent armed robberies. In the last robbery, Vasquez hit a gas station attendant in the face with his handgun, causing fractures to the victim’s right orbital area. Vasquez also shot the victim in the leg. The prosecution charged Vasquez with attempted murder, two armed robberies, related crimes, and sentencing enhancements. The prosecution calculated Vasquez’s potential exposure at 90 years to life. However, the trial court struck one of Vasquez’s two prior strike convictions and imposed a 28-year determinate prison term after Vazquez pleaded to the sheet. The prosecution objected and appealed. The Court of Appeal concluded that given Vasquez’s background, character, and prospects, he fell squarely within the letter and the spirit of the “Three Strikes” law, and there were no extraordinary circumstances that justified a departure from that law. Therefore, the Court found the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing one of Vasquez’s strike priors. View "California v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Rodney Lewis appealed after a jury convicted him of rape by intoxication and kidnapping to commit rape. Lewis argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on kidnapping to commit rape and insufficient evidence supported his convictions. After careful consideration, the Court of Appeal agreed there was prejudicial instructional error and reversed his kidnapping to commit rape conviction. Because there was insufficient evidence to support that conviction, Lewis could not be retried. His insufficiency of the evidence claim as to his rape by intoxication conviction was meritless. In all other respects, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "California v. Lewis" on Justia Law

In 1991, petitioner Nokkuwa Ervin and other perpetrators committed an armed robbery of a store. During the robbery, one of the perpetrators shot and killed an innocent victim. A jury found Ervin guilty of burglary, robbery, and murder. The jury found true two sentencing allegations that Ervin personally used a firearm as to the burglary and the robbery counts. The jury found not true a sentencing allegation that Ervin personally used a firearm as to the murder count. The jury also found true two felony-murder special-circumstance allegations. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. In 2019, the California Legislature limited the scope of the felony-murder rule: if a victim is killed during a designated felony, a defendant cannot be found guilty of murder unless he was: (1) the actual killer; (2) aided and abetted the actual killer with the intent to kill; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. Ervin petitioned for resentencing, arguing he could no longer be convicted of murder. The trial court initially found Ervin established a prima facie basis for relief, issued an order to show cause (OSC), and set an evidentiary hearing. But the court later revoked the OSC and summarily denied the petition. The court ruled the felony-murder special-circumstance findings precluded Ervin from obtaining relief under Penal Code section 1170.95 as a matter of law. The trial court’s ruling was made prior to the California Supreme Court’s ruling in California v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (2021), which clarified the guidelines for section 1170.95 petitions. In its de novo review, the Court of Appeal found Ervin’s section 1170.95 petition reliably met the “very low” prima facie threshold for relief. Thus, the Court reversed the trial court’s summary denial of Ervin’s section 1170.95 petition. On remand, the Court ordered the trial court to issue an OSC and to conduct an evidentiary hearing. View "California v. Ervin" on Justia Law