Reasonable Doubts - Nov 4, 2010
Battery - on custodial officer
People v. Dooley (C062665, Third Dist., 10/18/10) Cal.App.4th
Evidence showed victim was correctional officer in county jail, and therefore satisfied elements of "custodial officer" within meaning of Penal Code section 831.
Death penalty - issues
People v. Bacon (S079179, 10/21/10) Cal.4th
Issues: 1) trial court's exclusion of note written by defendant; 2) Miranda violation; 3) jury instructions; 4) sufficiency of evidence for prior-murder special circumstance; 5) admission of handgun possession evidence under Penal Code section 190.3(b); 6) penalty phase prejudice from failure to suppress defendant's statements; 7) challenges to the death penalty law; and 9) cumulative effect of penalty phase errors. Usual result: full affirmance.
The refusal to admit the note (containing the name, address and phone of victim) was grounded on defendant's failure to prove victim was source of information on the note, especially as it was in the defendant's handwriting.
DUI - administrative mandamus
Brenner v. DMV (A126745, First Dist., 10/18/10) Cal.App.4th
No basis for rejecting trial court's ruling granting administrative mandamus. Although officer's testimony and plaintiff's BAC results were sufficient to establish DMV's prima facie case, plaintiff presented evidence (expert testimony) that testing instrument produced results higher than accurate values, thus rebutting Department's prima facie showing with evidence that the recorded test results were inaccurate. Burden shifted back to DMV to prove by preponderance of evidence that test results were reliable. "It did not do so."
Sentencing - prior drug offenses
People v. Newton (B216215, Second Dist., 10/18/10) Cal.App.4th
Enhancement under Health & Safety Code section 11370.2(a) for prior drug offenses may be imposed even when execution of sentence on prior conviction was stayed under Penal Code section 654.
Subpoenas - role of prosecutor in third party subpoena hearing
Kling v. Superior Court (S176171, Cal. Sup. Ct., 10/18/10) Cal.4th
Prosecutor may participate and argue at hearing on documents produced as result of third party subpoena duces tecum issued by criminal defendant, and may learn of identity of subpoeanaed party and documents sought. Trial court may protect privileged information by conducting parts of the hearing ex parte. See People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 750-752.)
Writs - mandate or prohibition to review trial court reconsideration of habeas decision
Jackson v. Superior Court (H035137, Sixth Dist., 11/3/10) Cal.App.4th
Superior court has inherent power to reconsider and vacate order granting petition for writ of habeas corpus within 60-day time period for the People to appeal from the order, as long as no appeal has yet been filed. Superior court acted within its discretion in granting reconsideration of its order granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's petition for mandate/prohibition denied.
