Archive

Archive for August, 2013

Failure to object to prosecution expert waives challenge on appeal; evidence was sufficient for conviction

August 29, 2013 Comments off

Failure to object to prosecution expert waives challenge on appeal; evidence was sufficient for conviction

People v. Dowl

S182621

“The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP; § 11362.7 et seq.) authorize use of marijuana for medical purposes under certain circumstances.  We granted review in this case to consider issues relating to expert testimony when a criminal defendant defends against a charge of possession of marijuana for purposes of sale by introducing evidence that, under these statutes, he legally possessed the marijuana for medical purposes.  Defendant Lewis Marcus Dowl, who asserted such a defense, contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish his intent to sell because the expert who opined at trial on that subject lacked experience distinguishing between lawful possession for medical use and unlawful possession for purposes of sale.  Insofar as defendant argues the expert’s opinion was inadmissible or insufficient because the witness was unqualified, we find that defendant forfeited the argument by failing to object at trial to the witness’s qualifications.  Insofar as defendant otherwise contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, we disagree.  We therefore affirm the judgment

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S182621.PDF

Force used to commit theft by false pretenses doesn’t result in robbery

August 26, 2013 Comments off

Force used to commit theft by false pretenses doesn’t result in robbery.

People v. Williams

S195187

“Defendant used re-encoded payment cards to buy gift cards at a department store.  After the store’s security guards were alerted to the scam, they asked defendant to show them the gift card receipts and the payment cards used.  Defendant did so.  When he was told that the numbers on the cards did not match those on the receipts, he began walking away, ignored the security guards’ requests to stop, and then shoved one of the guards.  After a brief struggle, defendant was handcuffed.  Defendant was later charged with and convicted of several offenses, including, as relevant here, robbery and theft.  He here challenges his robbery convictions.”

“This review has led us to conclude that the words ‘felonious taking’ in the robbery definition were intended to refer only to theft committed by larceny and not to theft by false pretenses.”

“Therefore, theft by false pretenses cannot satisfy the ‘felonious taking’ element of robbery.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S195187.PDF

Another death penalty case affirmed

August 26, 2013 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed this death penalty case

People v. Harris

S081700

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S081700.PDF

Another death penalty affirmed

August 26, 2013 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed this death penalty case:

People v. Jones

S042346

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S042346.PDF

Death penalty affirmed

August 26, 2013 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed this death penalty case

People v. Mai

S089478

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S089478.PDF

Death Penalty Affirmed

August 22, 2013 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed a death penalty case today:

People v. Edwards

S073316

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S073316.PDF

Invalid Initial Assessments do not require dismissal of an SVP petition

August 19, 2013 Comments off

Invalid Initial Assessments do not require dismissal of an SVP petition

Reilly v. Superior Court

S202280

“We granted review in this case to determine whether a court must dismiss a Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) civil commitment petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600 et seq.  if the Office of Administrative Law determines that the initial evaluations supporting the petition were conducted under an assessment protocol that did not comply with its procedural requirements.  We conclude the court was not required to dismiss the commitment proceedings under these circumstances.  Instead, an alleged sexually violent predator (SVP) must show that any fault that did occur under the assessment protocol created a material error.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S202280.PDF