DAs can obtain confidential mental health records and share them with evaluators

December 14, 2018 Leave a comment

DAs can obtain confidential mental health records and share them with evaluators

“What we conclude is that a recent amendment to the
SVPA, enacted after we granted review, allows the district
attorney to obtain those otherwise confidential records. The
district attorney may then disclose those records to its retained
expert, subject to an appropriate protective order, to assist in
the cross-examination of the SDSH evaluators or mental health
professionals retained by the defense and, more generally, in
prosecuting the SVP petition.”

People v. Superior Court (Smith)

S225562

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S225562.PDF

Advertisements

No criminal cases Monday

December 14, 2018 Leave a comment

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

Coming tomorrow

December 12, 2018 Leave a comment

Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:

PEOPLE v. SUPERIOR COURT (SMITH)
S225562 (G050827; Orange County Superior Court – M-9531)
Argued in San Francisco 10-02-18

The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Is an expert retained by the prosecution in a proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predator Act entitled to review otherwise confidential treatment information under Welfare and Institutions Case section 5328? (2) Is the district attorney entitled to review medical and psychological treatment records or is access limited to confidential treatment information contained in an updated mental evaluation conducted under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6603, subdivision (c)(1)?

When a forged check includes a state value, that’s the value for Prop. 47

December 10, 2018 Leave a comment

When a forged check includes a state value, that’s the value for Prop. 47

“Proposition 47, a recent initiative measure, generally makes specified types of forgery misdemeanors if the “value” of the forged instrument does not exceed $950. (Pen. Code, § 473, subd. (b).) We must decide how to determine the value of a forged check. Because forgery requires the intent to defraud, and the stated value of the forged check indicates the severity of the intended fraud, we conclude that when the check contains a stated value, that amount is its value for this purpose. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case, which reached a similar conclusion, and disapprove People v. Lowery (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 533, review granted April 19, 2017, S240615 (Lowery), to the extent it is inconsistent with this conclusion.”

People v. Franco

S233972

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S233973.PDF

No new cases tomorrow

December 5, 2018 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow.

Death penalty case reversed for improper juror exclusion

December 3, 2018 Comments off

Death penalty case reversed for improper juror exclusion

The Cal. Supremes reversed the death verdict in this case, because the trial judge improperly excused a juror. The claim was that the juror was unalterably opposed to the death penalty, but this was based solely on the jury questionnaire, which failed to show that the juror could never impose death.

People v. Buenrostro

S073823

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S073823.PDF

Another death penalty affirmed

December 3, 2018 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case.

People v. Miracle

S140894

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S140894.PDF