Superior Court has jurisdiction to order preservation of evidence in a capital case
Here we address whether a superior court has jurisdiction to grant a motion to preserve evidence relating to a capital case then pending review on automatic appeal to this court. We conclude it does, limited to evidence potentially discoverable under Penal Code section 1054.9, which establishes a mechanism for postconviction discovery.
The Cal. Supremes issued no new cases today.
Probation Conditions Implicitly Require Knowledge
“The terms of defendant’s probation bar him from possessing firearms or illegal drugs. He contends that these conditions on his release are unconstitutionally vague on their face, because they do not explicitly define the state of mind, or mens rea, required to sustain a violation of probation. He requests modification of the conditions to convey explicitly that they apply only to knowing possession of the prohibited items. What we conclude is that the probation conditions already include an implicit requirement of knowing possession, and thus afford defendant fair notice of the conduct required of him.”
Coming tomorrow from the Cal. Supremes:
PEOPLE v. HALL (LAQUINCY)
S227193 (A141278; Contra Costa County Superior Court – 51315225)
Argued in Los Angeles 12-07-16
This case presents the following issues: (1) Are probation conditions prohibiting defendant from: (a) “owning, possessing or having in his custody or control any handgun, rifle, shotgun or any firearm whatsoever or any weapon that can be concealed on his person”; and (b) “using or possessing or having in his custody or control any illegal drugs, narcotics, narcotics paraphernalia without a prescription,” unconstitutionally vague? (2) Is an explicit knowledge requirement constitutionally mandated?
The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.
The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow, Thursday.