The Cal. Supremes will issue no new opinions tomorrow, Thursday, March 28th.
Long (111 pages) death penalty affirmance
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of March 4, 2013
The California Supreme Court has announced that it accepted no cases during the week of March 4, 2013.
Robey v. Superior Court
S197735. The court requested the parties to submit simultaneous letter briefs addressing whether the District Attorney forfeited the argument that the warrantless search was justified by the “plain smell” of marijuana emanating from the package and whether the court should take judicial notice of documents filed in the superior court in connection with the motion to suppress, which may be pertinent to the issue of forfeiture.
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of March 11, 2013
People v. Loew
S207634. (D059007; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIF132717.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal modified and affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court ordered briefing deferred pending the decision of the United State Supreme Court in Maryland v. King, No. 12-207, cert. granted Nov. 9, 2012, __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 594, 184 L.Ed.2d 390] and of this court in People v. Buza, S196200 (#11-124), which concern the constitutionality of compulsory collection of biological samples from adult felony arrestees for purposes of DNA testing.
Summary of Cases Accepted and Related Actions for Week of February 25, 2013
People v. Gonzalez
S207830. (D059713; 211 Cal.App.4th 405; San Diego County Superior Court; SCD228173.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.
This case presents the following issue: Was defendant properly convicted of both oral copulation of an unconscious person and oral copulation of an intoxicated person?
(See People v. Craig (1941) 17 Cal.2d 453.)
Tomorrow the Cal. Supremes will issue a death penalty case:
People v. Pearson(Michael)
S058157 (Contra Costa County Superior Court – 951701-2)
Argued in San Francisco 1-08-13
The matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
Parolees engaging in mandated therapy retain their psychotherapist-patient privilege
We granted review in this case to determine whether the trial court properly applied the psychotherapist-patient privilege with regard to statements made by a parolee to his therapist during parole-mandated therapy sessions and, if not, whether the trial court’s error constitutes a violation of a federal constitutional right of privacy as well as a violation of the state statutory privilege.
For the reasons discussed hereafter, we agree with the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the trial court erred in permitting disclosure of defendant’s psychological records and in admitting his former therapist’s testimony in reliance upon the dangerous patient exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege.
…we conclude that the trial court error was not prejudicial and does not require reversal of the trial court judgment.