No new cases Monday

September 13, 2019 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

Advertisements

No new criminal cases tomorrow

September 11, 2019 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases tomorrow.

No new cases today

September 9, 2019 Leave a comment

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today.

No new cases today

September 5, 2019 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today.

No new cases yesterday

September 3, 2019 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases yesterday.

No new cases tomorrow

August 28, 2019 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases tomorrow.

Misinstruction of the jury was harmless error

August 27, 2019 Comments off

Misinstruction of the jury was harmless error

Defendant Yazan Aledamat was charged with assault
with a deadly weapon, specifically a box cutter. A few objects
are inherently deadly weapons. Others, including a box cutter,
are deadly weapons only if used in a way that makes them
deadly weapons. Here, the trial court erroneously permitted the
jury to consider the box cutter an inherently deadly weapon. It
presented the jury with two possible theories of guilt: (1) that
the box cutter was inherently deadly, and (2) that defendant
used the box cutter in a deadly way. The first of these theories
was erroneous under the facts. A box cutter is, as a matter of
law, not inherently deadly. The second theory was correct. We
must decide what standard of review applies to this error.
We conclude the usual “beyond a reasonable doubt”
standard of review established in Chapman v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) for federal constitutional error
applies. The reviewing court must reverse the conviction unless,
after examining the entire cause, including the evidence, and
considering all relevant circumstances, it determines the error
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. On this record,
applying this standard, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that the error was harmless. Accordingly, we reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeal, which found the error
prejudicial.

People v. Aledamat

S248105

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S248105.PDF