Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that a claim alleging a discriminatory decision is not subject to a motion to strike simply because it contests an action or decision that was arrived at following speech of petition activity or that was thereafter communicated by means of speech or petitioning activity. Plaintiff, a tenure-track assistant professor, filed suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act for national origin discrimination and failure to receive a discrimination-free workplace after his application for tenure was denied. The Board of Trustees of the California State University responded with a motion to strike, arguing that the communications that led up to the decision to deny Plaintiff tenure were protected activities. The trial court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “a claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.” View "Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University" on Justia Law

Petitioner committed murder when he was sixteen years old and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The sentencing court did not give due consideration to the factors in Miller v. Alabama in imposing this sentence. Petitioner did not pursue an appeal. Here, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a resentencing hearing at which the court would properly integrate the Miller factors into its sentencing calculus. The superior court granted habeas corpus relief. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Petitioner could seek recall of his sentence and resentencing to a term of life with the opportunity for parole pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1170(d)(2), which remedied any constitutional defect in Petitioner’s sentence and therefore precluded habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 1170(d)(2) does not provide an adequate remedy at law for Miller error, and Petitioner may obtain a Miller resentencing as a form of habeas corpus relief. Remanded for a resentencing hearing. View "In re Kristopher Kirchner" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with the special circumstances of killing a witness, murder, in the commission of kidnapping, and lying in weight. The jury also found Defendant guilty of kidnapping, rape, and dissuading a witness. After a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death for the murder conviction. The trial court imposed a judgment of death. The Supreme Court reversed the lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding for insufficient evidence but otherwise affirmed the judgment, holding (1) the evidence did not support the lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding, but no other prejudicial error occurred during the guilt phase of trial; and (2) there was no prejudicial error during the penalty phase of trial. View "Poeple v. Becerrada" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other crimes. The jury found true special-circumstance allegations. After a penalty phase, the jury returned a verdict of death.The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for modification of his sentence to life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no prejudicial error occurred during the pretrial phase of trial or during the guilt phase of trial; (2) substantial evidence supported Defendant’s convictions; (3) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; and (4) Defendant’s challenges to the constitutionality of California’s death penalty scheme were unavailing. View "People v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of nonforcible lewd conduct. The trial court placed Defendant on probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender, mandated his participation in an approved sex offender management program, and imposed two probation conditions that were the subject of this appeal - (1) that Defendant waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(3); and (2) that Defendant waive any psychotherapist-patient privilege, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code 1203.067(b)(4). Defendant appealed, arguing that conditioning probation on the waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination and on his participation in polygraph examinations violated his Fifth Amendment rights and, like the waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege, was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Court of Appeal upheld the validity of the subdivision (b)(4) and (b)(3) conditions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation conditions challenged in this case were not unconstitutional where they enabled those charged with monitoring the probation to obtain the information they need while otherwise safeguarding the probation’s privacy and protecting the probation from compelled self-incrimination. View "People v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In People v. Hosner, the Supreme Court held that an indigent criminal defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a full and complete transcript of the prior proceedings. Defendant in this case was an indigent pro se defendant charged with making criminal threats, among other offenses. A jury deadlocked on the charges, the court declared a mistrial, and retrial was set. At a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted Defendant’s motion for a “complete record of trial transcripts.” Defendant received a transcript that included all witness testimony from the first trial but omitted the opening statements and closing arguments. The court then denied Defendant’s request for a transcript of the opening statements and closing arguments. After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty as charged. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Hosner’s presumption applies only to transcripts of witness testimony and not to transcripts of opening statements and closing arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) a defendant facing retrial is presumptively entitled to a full transcript of the previous trial, including opening and closing statements; (2) when a defendant is denied only a portion of the transcript, the harmless error rule applies; and (3) the error was harmless in this case. View "People v. Reese" on Justia Law

Petitioner requested disclosure of thirty-two categories of public records from the City of San Jose, its redevelopment agency and executive director, and other elected officials and their staffs, seeking documents concerning redevelopment efforts in downtown San Jose. Included in the request was emails and text messages sent or received on private electronic devices used by the mayor, two city council members, and their staffs. The City disclosed certain communications but did not disclose communications made suing the individuals’ personal accounts. Petitioner sued for declaratory relief under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), arguing that messages communicated through personal accounts are public records. The trial court granted summary judgment for Petitioner and ordered disclosure. The Court of Appeal, however, issued a writ of mandate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a city employee’s writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account. Remanded. View "City of San Jose v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of assault by a life prisoner with malice aforethought, and possession of a sharp instrument by a prisoner. The jury also found that Defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. The jury returned a death verdict. The trial court sentenced Defendant accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no reversible error occurred during either the guilt phase or penalty phase of trial; and (2) Defendant’s attacks on the constitutionality of California’s death penalty statute and related standard jury instructions were unavailing. View "People v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base for sale and placed on three years of probation. The terms of Defendant’s probation barred him from possessing firearms or illegal drugs. Defendant offered no objection to either condition. Defendant appealed, arguing that these conditions were unconstitutionally vague on their face because they did not explicitly define the mens rea required to sustain a violation of probation. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that the firearms and narcotics conditions did not need to be modified to bar “knowing” possession. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probation conditions afford Defendant fair notice of the conduct required of him because they already include an implicit requirement of knowing possession. View "People v. Hall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the course of a robbery with personal use of a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no Pitchess error; (2) the trial court did not err in its jury selection rulings; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant’s incriminating recorded statements, as the statements were voluntarily given; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for severance; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim; (6) any error in the stationing of a deputy near the witness stand during Defendant’s testimony was harmless; (7) no prejudicial error occurred during the penalty phase of trial; (8) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s automatic motion to modify the death verdict; and (9) California’s use of the death penalty does not violate international norms of evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. View "People v. Winbush" on Justia Law