Coming tomorrow

December 4, 2019 Leave a comment

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. GUZMAN (ALEJANDRO O.)
S242244 (B265937; Los Angeles County Superior Court – BA420611)
Argued in San Francisco 10-02-19
This case presents the following issue: Does the “Right to Truth-in-Evidence”
provision of the California Constitution (art. I, § 28, subd. (f)(2)) abrogate Penal Code
section 632, subdivision (d), which otherwise mandates the exclusion of recorded
confidential communications from evidence in criminal proceedings?

Death penalty affirmed

December 2, 2019 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case:

People v. Beck

S029843

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S029843.PDF

Death penalty affirmed

November 25, 2019 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case

People v. Johnson

S029551

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S029551.PDF

Death penalty affirmed

November 25, 2019 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case

People v. Rhoades

S082101

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S082101.PDF

The Fourth Amendment does not contain an exception to the warrant requirement for searches to locate a driver’s identification following a traffic stop

November 25, 2019 Comments off

The Fourth Amendment does not contain an exception to the warrant requirement for searches to locate a driver’s identification following a traffic stop

People v. Lopez

S238627

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S238627.PDF

We granted review to consider the application and
continuing validity of the Arturo D. rule in light of subsequent
legal developments. At the time Arturo D. was decided, no other
state or federal court had recognized an exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement for suspicionless traffic-stop
vehicle searches. The same holds true today; California remains
the only state to have recognized such an exception.
Considering the issue in light of more recent decisions from both
the United States Supreme Court and our sister states, we now
conclude that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification
following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent,
categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
requirement. To the extent Arturo D. held otherwise, we
conclude that rule should no longer be followed. We reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further
proceedings.

Coming Monday

November 22, 2019 Comments off

Coming Monday from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (JOE EDWARD)
S029551 (Sacramento County Superior Court – 58961)
Argued in San Francisco 9-03-19
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

PEOPLE v. LOPEZ (MARIA ELENA)
S238627 (C078537; Yolo County Superior Court – CRF143400)
Argued in San Francisco 9-03-19
This case presents the following issue: Does Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S.
332 permit a peace officer to search the interior of a suspect’s vehicle for
identification if the suspect fails to provide it upon request? (See In re Arturo D.
(2002) 27 Cal.4th 60.)

PEOPLE v. RHOADES (ROBERT BOYD)
S082101 (Sacramento County Superior Court – 98F00230)
Argued in San Francisco 9-03-19
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.

Fair market value for access card information determines Prop. 47 eligibility

November 21, 2019 Comments off

Fair market value for access card information determines Prop. 47 eligibility

We retread in this case ground recently traveled in People
v. Romanowski (2017) 2 Cal.5th 903 (Romanowski). At issue
once more is how to assess the value of stolen access card
information — a term encompassing information related to
credit and debit cards, bank accounts, and similar financial
devices. (See Pen. Code, § 484e, subd. (d) (section 484e(d)); id.,
§ 484d, subd. (2).)

What we concluded in Romanowski is that courts
conducting that analysis must do what they do in all theft cases:
figure out “how much [the stolen property] would sell for.”
(Romanowski, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 915.) Discerning that
amount is an endeavor that calls for some subtlety and may
depend on more than one factor. Further complicating the
inquiry in this context is the lack of a legal market for stolen
access card information. But instead of engaging in that
nuanced inquiry, the Court of Appeal here simply assumed that
the value of what the defendant obtained using the stolen
information sets a floor on the fair market value of the stolen
access card information she unlawfully used. Because the Court
of Appeal’s reasoning falls short of what Romanowski requires,
and because both parties agree that further factfinding is
necessary to resolve this case, we vacate the judgment and
remand.

People v. Liu

S248130

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S248130.PDF