Reasonable Doubts - Feb. 5, 2010
Burglary - sufficiency of evidence of first degree
People v. Aguilar (2010) Cal.App.4th , E047830, Fourth Dist., 2/3/10
Because dwelling is inhabited within meaning of Penal Code section 459 in the first degree when it is currently used for residential purposes, even if temporarily unocuppied, court rejects contention that apartment that was not being lived in because of a fire was not "inhabited." Victim still had possessions in it and went back to get some of them (which is when he found defendant, drinking his wine and wearing his tennis shoes). Also inhabited under the "disaster" provision of 459.
Discovery - officer's personnel records under Brady
Eulloqui v. Superior Court (2d, Dist., 2/4/10, B218578) Cal.App.4th
Defendant was convicted in 1998 of murder. In 2007 he found out that the chief witness against him testified in another trial that he had been an informant. He filed a habeas petition, and sought discovery of personnel records of investigating officer. Held, petitioner entitled to writ of mandate under both Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 and Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, commanding trial court to review Pitchess records for complaints alleging that on or before trial, officer failed to report payments given to informants. Five-year bar of Penal Code section 1045(b)(1) did not bar disclosure under Brady. Petitioner not entitled to complaints filed after the trial.
Juveniles - curfew ordinance
In re A.G. (4th Dist., 2/4/10, D053991) Cal.App.4th
Welfare & Institutions Code section 625.5 does not require that minor arrested for curfew ordinance violation have been been previously warned. Intent of statute was not limit powers of cities to enact curfew ordinances but to relieve jurisdictions of one of the fiscal burdens cause by curfew violators. Using intermediate scrutiny standard of Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980) 447 U.S. 557 (whether governmental interest is substantial, whether law directly advances that interest, and is no more extensive than necessary), court holds that ordinance sweeps too broadly and includes innocent and legal conduct undertaken even with parental permission. San Diego Municipal Code section 58.0102 is unconstitutional.
Probation - documentary evidence
People v. Gomez (2d Dist., 2/4/10, B213013) Cal.App.4th
No error in admitting probation report showing that defendant failed to report, pay restitution, submit employment verification and verification of attendance at counseling sessions. Reliable hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocations under Due Process Clause. (People v. Maki (1985) 39 Cal.3d 707.) Court noted that if probationer had challenged the records as being inaccurate, "there may be a serious issue" whether the records would prevail.
