Archive

Archive for December, 2015

No new criminal cases today

December 31, 2015 Comments off

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

No cases today

December 28, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

Death penalty affirmed

December 24, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes affirmed another death penalty case today, reversing only one of the special circumstance findings.

People v. Sandoval

S115872

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S115872.PDF

No new cases today

December 21, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases today.

No new criminal cases tomorrow

December 16, 2015 Comments off

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

No new cases Monday

December 11, 2015 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

Rules of evidence at a Mentally Disordered Offender hearing

December 10, 2015 Comments off

Rules of evidence at a Mentally Disordered Offender hearing

People v. Stevens

S209643

“Is a mental health expert’s opinion testimony in support of a defendant’s commitment under the MDO Act substantive independent proof that the defendant committed a qualifying offense for commitment? We conclude that a mental health expert’s testimony in support of a defendant’s MDO commitment may not be used to prove the defendant committed a qualifying offense involving one of the offenses specified in section 2962, subdivision (e)(2)(A) through (O) or involved behavior described in subdivision (e)(2)(P) or (Q). We also hold that mental health experts may not testify about a topic that is not ‘sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact.’ (Evid. Code, § 801, subd. (a).) Because the prosecution failed to present evidence other than its mental health expert’s opinion testimony and supporting foundational facts, and because that expert improperly opined on a topic (defendant’s threat of force or violence) that is not beyond common experience, substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s finding on the MDO commitment. For reasons explained below, we reverse the Court of Appeal judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with our holding.”

 

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S209643.PDF