Archive

Archive for July, 2013

No new cases today

July 29, 2013 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today, Monday.

Proof that material is MDMA is not sufficient to prove that it is a controlled substance

July 25, 2013 Comments off

Proof that material is MDMA is not sufficient to prove that it is a controlled substance

People v. Davis

S198434

“The question presented here is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a given material is a controlled substance regulated by the Health and Safety Code.  Specifically, may a jury properly infer that 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine  (MDMA) is controlled based solely on its chemical name, when that substance is not listed in the code?  We conclude that evidence of MDMA’s chemical name, standing alone, is insufficient to prove the material is a controlled substance.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S198434.PDF

Death penalty affirmed:

July 25, 2013 Comments off

DA must prove that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of his conduct, when offering evidence that a prior sexual offense was committed when the defendant was under 14

July 22, 2013 Comments off

DA must prove that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of his conduct, when offering evidence that a prior sexual offense was committed when the defendant was under 14

People v. Cottone

S194107

“…[I]if the proffered conduct occurred before the defendant had reached the age of 14, must the prosecution establish that the defendant knew the conduct was wrongful and was thus capable of committing a crime, as required by Penal Code section 26, subdivision One (Penal Code section 26(One))?  We conclude such proof is required because section 1108 only permits admission of evidence of another sexual offense that amounts to “a crime” under state or federal law. ”

“…[W]e hold that upon the defendant’s timely objection, the trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant had the capacity to commit an unadjudicated juvenile offense before admitting that evidence under section 1108.”

“…[W]e hold that whether a defendant understood the wrongfulness of an unadjudicated sexual offense allegedly committed before age 14 is an evidentiary question for the court to determine under section 405.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S194107.PDF

Summary of Cases Accepted for Week of July 15, 2013

July 19, 2013 Comments off

People v. Smith

S210898. (D060317; 215 Cal.App.4th 382; Riverside County Superior Court; BAF004719.)

Petition for review after the Court of Appeal ordered sentence modified and otherwise affirmed. The court limited review to the following issue:
Was defendant properly convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences theory of aiding and abetting?

People v. Bender

S210965. (A131954; nonpublished opinion; San Francisco
County Superior Court; 212640.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Davis, S198434 (#1201), which presents the following issue: Did substantial evidence support defendant’s convictions for possession and sale of a controlled substance even though MDMA/Ecstasy is not expressly listed as a controlled substance subject to Health and Safety Code sections 11377 and 11379, and the prosecution did not present expert testimony that MDMA/Ecstasy contains a controlled substance or is an analog of a controlled substance?

Summary of Cases Accepted for Week of July 8, 2013

July 19, 2013 Comments off
Summary of Cases Accepted for Week of July 8, 2013

People v. Eroshevich, S210545

 (B231411; 214 Cal.App.4th 1335; Los Angeles
County Superior Court; BA353907.)
Petition for review after the Court of Appeal
reversed orders dismissing counts and granting a new trial in a criminal case. This case
presents the following issues: (1) If a trial court issues a ruling equivalent to an acquittal
after a jury has entered a guilty verdict and the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court’s
ruling on appeal, does the trial court’s erroneous acquittal nevertheless bar retrial under
principles of double jeopardy if, on remand, the defendant renews an earlier motion for a
new trial? (2)In such circumstances, is the Court of Appeal permitted
to direct a trial court to dismiss charges and acquit a defendant if the trial court decides to
grant the defendant’s motion for a new trial under Penal Code section 1181?

Summary of Cases Accepted for Week of June 24, 2013

July 19, 2013 Comments off

 

Summary of Cases Accepted  for Week of June 24, 2013

 

People v. Centeno, S209957
(E054600; 214 Cal.App.4th 843; San Bernardino
County Superior Court; FVA801798.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal
affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.
The court limited review to the following issue:
Did the prosecutor commit misconduct in closing argument by
misstating the state’s burden of proof?

People v. Prunty, S210234
(C071065; 214 Cal.App.4th 1110; Sacramento
County Superior Court; 10F07981.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal
affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.
The court limited review to the following issue:
Is evidence of a collaborative or organizational nexus required before
multiple subsets of the Norteños can be treated as a whole for the purpose of determining
whether a group constitutes a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code
section 186.22, subdivision (f)?