Reasonable Doubts - Aug 3, 2010
Death penalty - Various issues
People v. Verdugo (S083904, 8/2/10) Cal.4th
Denial of second (Keenan) counsel proper when first counsel's declaration insufficient as it contained nothing more than a bare assertion that counsel's services were required. No Brady violation where DA's notes of witness interview were not exculpatory. Any statutory violation was harmless as court granted defendant additional time to review notes or recall witnesses. Information re witness relocation not "apparent" Brady error, and no prejudice shown. Other discovery violations either not Brady error or harmless. Evidence that investigating officers had been exonerated of charges that they fabricated evidence in another case properly excluded under Evidence Code section 352 (marginally relevant and unduly consumptive of time). Insufficient evidence to support lesser manslaughter instruction. Failure to give pinpoint instruction on voluntary intoxication forfeited by lack of request, and it was inconsistent with other defenses. Penalty phase issues: victim impact, scope of cross-examination, timing of defense closing, instructions, challenges to California death penalty scheme. Moreno concurs in judgment, but disagrees re introduction of music tape which victim had given to her father as victim impact evidence.
Death penalty - Various issues
People v. Letner & Tobin (S015384, CA S.Ct., 7/29/10) Cal.4th
Claims considered and rejected: failure to set aside burglary charges and burglary special circumstance; failure of information to charge first degree felony murder; denial of motions to sever defendants' trials; leg braces during voir dire (no evidence they could be seen by jurors, and defendant had gotten into fight); various evidentiary rulings; sufficiency of evidence; prosecutorial misconduct; instructional error; sufficiency of appellate record; cross-examination of one of the defendants re letters; admission of unadjudicated priors; 12) constitutionality of California's death penalty; cumulative effect of alleged errors.
Juveniles - probation condition unreasonable
In re D.G. (A126655, 1st Dist, 7/30/10) Cal.App.4th
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Dennis Hayashi abused his discretion in prohibiting minor from being within 150 feet of a school where burglary had nothing to do with a school. "We conclude the condition as drawn was unreasonable because it is not related to appellant's offenses and does not prohibit otherwise criminal conduct and because there is no evidence in the record to suggest the condition will serve a rehabilitative purpose by preventing his future criminality. We narrow the condition consistent with state law that prohibits persons from visiting school grounds without notifying school authorities and affirm the court's dispositional order as so modified."
Juveniles - San Diego curfew ordinance
In re A.G. (D053991, 4th Dist, 2/4/10) Cal.App.4th
Welfare & Institutions Code section 625.5 not intended to superimpose prior warning requirement before county ordinance may treat curfew violation as misdemeanor. It was intended solely to relieve counties from the costs of prosecuting such cases, by making parents liable. Using intermediate-scrutiny test, court concludes that county's failure to provide that minors may travel to and from protected activities renders ordinance unconstitutional, as it sweeps too broadly and includes within its ambit innocent and legal conduct. Note: this is second time San Diego has seen its curfew ordinance tossed out, and it still does not know how to draft a proper law.
Parole - appellate court may not limit evidence before parole board
In re Prather (S172903, CA S.Ct., 7/29/10) Cal.4th
Decision granting habeas corpus relief on grounds denial of parole not supported by "some evidence" should direct the Board to conduct a new hearing in accordance with due process and consistent with court's decision, but should not place improper limitations on the type of evidence the Board may consider.
Public officials - embezzlement, bribery, conflict of interest, perjury
People v. Wong (B212580, 2d Dist, 7/28/10) Cal.App.4th
You know things will not go well for the defendant when the opinion starts "The story of Leland Wong (Wong) is one of graft and hubris. Wrongly believing he could get away with lying, cheating and stealing, he ended up convicted of multiple crimes, including embezzling money (Pen. Code, sec. 487, subd. (a)) accepting a bribe (sec 68); acting with a conflict of interest (Gov. Code, sec 1090); and committing perjury (sec 118)." The court then answers the question, "Is it legal for a commissioner in one city department to take money from a third party to influence contract negotiations with a different department in the same city? The answer is no." Some of Wong's acts included charging massages to Kaiser while working as director of community relations, for which he was fired. Nevertheless, he was appointed to the LA World Airports commission by LA Mayor James Hahn, and took money from corporations, thus creating a conflict of interest. He then failed to disclose the payments in a form signed under penalty of perjury. Appellate court affirms the judgment in its entirety.
Restitution - by defendant to own insurance company
People v. Busser (D055088, 4th Dist, 7/20/10) Cal.App.4th
San Diego County Superior Court Judge Randa Trapp erred in ordering that defendant pay restitution to his own insurance company following conviction for hit and run and presenting false statement where, under rule of People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, 962, repair costs insurance company would have been obligated to pay even if defendant had not presented a false claim statement are not losses resulting from the criminal offense under Penal Code section 1202.4 because they are not attributable to defendant's criminal misrepresentation.
Sex offenses - registration
People v. Alvarado (E049321, 4th Dist, 7/30/10) Cal.App.4th
Order requiring sex offender registration following conviction for attempted lewd act on child under 14 does not violate equal protection, distinguishing People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (registration for oral cop with girl under 18 violates equal protection, as sex with same minor would not require registration). Fines and fees improperly imposed as probation conditions.
