California Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of death imposed on Larry Kusuth Hazlett, Jr. for the 1978 rape-murder of Tana Woolley, tried under the 1977 death penalty law. The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory strike of Prospective Juror A.E., the sole African-American remaining in the venire, did not…

The California Supreme Court held that the gross abuse of discretion standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.255(b) does not govern a privately owned utility's objection to a public entity's right to take its property; that standard is confined to challenges to the validity of a resolution of necessity, while…

The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment granting Joseph Mayor's petition for writ of mandate, which had directed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to rescind its order granting Ross Valley Sanitation District's timely petition for reconsideration 144 days after filing, well beyond…

The court affirmed Pearson's second death judgment after rejecting challenges to the reappointment and continued representation by his original trial counsel, the conduct of the penalty retrial, and the preservation of his prior guilt-phase convictions.

The court held that the trial court erred by finding a retrospective competency hearing feasible nearly two decades after the original competency proceeding. The prosecution failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the available record, diminished by the absence of counsel at the original hearing…

The court held that a habeas corpus court granting relief on a narrow, retroactive claim under Senate Bill No. 620 was not required to vacate the defendant's entire valid sentence or conduct a full resentencing under later ameliorative laws.

The court affirmed Shove’s convictions and death judgment, concluding that the challenged search evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception, the trial court properly excluded or limited speculative third-party culpability evidence, and the remaining evidentiary and jury-selection rulings did not warrant…

The court held that Hernandez demonstrated prejudicial error under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) because she did not meaningfully understand, have the ability to defend against, or knowingly accept the mandatory immigration consequences of her guilty plea.

The California Supreme Court held that the Government Claims Act occupies the entire field of presentation requirements for claims for money or damages against local public entities, including claims for local tax refunds, and therefore preempts the City of Carson's mandatory administrative refund procedures.

The California Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, granted a petition for writ of mandate and held that superior courts have a ministerial duty, under the in forma pauperis doctrine and its 2018 decision in Jameson, to provide civil litigants who cannot afford a private court reporter with a means of…

The California Supreme Court held that a magistrate's order dismissing a felony complaint is a dismissal in a 'felony case' appealable by the People to the Court of Appeal under Penal Code sections 1235 and 1238(a)(8), even though the felony allegations were charged only by complaint and no indictment or information…

The California Supreme Court held that a single section 998 offer of compromise presenting two independent, mutually exclusive sets of settlement terms, between which the offeree must choose in order to accept, is not categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes.

The California Supreme Court held that a drug manufacturer does not owe a duty of reasonable care to develop and commercialize a safer alternative drug when the existing drug is nondefective, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeal, remanding with instructions to grant summary judgment for Gilead on all causes of…

The California Supreme Court held that under PEPRA's amendment to Government Code section 31461(b)(2), a legacy member's retirement benefit calculation may not include cashed-out leave time exceeding the annual cashout limit set by the terms of employment, even when the employee designates a final compensation period…

The California Supreme Court held that an insured need not allege exhaustion of all underlying insurance to pursue either a declaratory relief claim or a tortious bad faith claim against an excess insurer.

The court held that a prior prison term enhancement was “imposed” for purposes of Penal Code section 1172.75 even though the sentencing court struck the punishment associated with it.

The court held that a second voluntary dismissal under the federal two-dismissal rule does not, by itself, preclude a later action on the same state-law claims in state court. The rule is a federal procedural bar that prevents refiling in the same federal court, not a rule of claim preclusion applicable in other…

The court held that the jury's intent-to-kill finding was entitled to issue-preclusive effect in the defendant's resentencing proceeding, but that finding, alone or combined with the other findings necessarily reflected in the verdicts and instructions, did not conclusively establish murder liability under current…

The court held that Salazar must be resentenced under the ameliorative sentencing law enacted while his nonfinal appeal was pending because the record did not clearly indicate that the original sentencing court would have imposed the same middle term under the new lower-term presumption for qualifying trauma.

The California Supreme Court held that the Wende procedure—independent appellate review triggered by appointed counsel's no-issue brief—is not constitutionally required on appeal from the denial of a Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, because no constitutional right to counsel attaches to state…

The California Supreme Court affirmed Adrian Camacho's convictions for first‑degree murder and related special circumstances, holding that the trial court's order for a prosecution‑ordered psychiatric examination, the jury instruction regarding his refusal, the admission of his jail letters, the exclusion of certain…

The California Supreme Court held that Proposition 36 did not eliminate the Hendrix rule, so trial courts retain discretion to impose concurrent sentences for qualifying felonies committed on the same occasion or arising from the same operative facts, and that sentences for serious or violent felonies must run…

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded for resentencing, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the gang‑enhancement penalties under Penal Code §186.22(b) because the prosecution failed to prove that the lone actor acted for the gang’s benefit and with specific intent to…

The California Supreme Court held that assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245(a)(1)) and force‑likely assault (§ 245(a)(4)) are “different statements of the same offense” under section 954, and therefore a defendant may not be convicted of both based on the same act or course of conduct.

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the trial court's mistake‑of‑fact instruction was prejudicial under the Watson harmless‑error test and therefore required reversal and remand for further proceedings.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, including the death sentence, and held that the trial court did not err in revoking Ng's pro se status, appointing standby counsel, denying his Marsden motions, or refusing to appoint the San Francisco Public Defender and Michael Burt.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, death sentence, and all rulings of the trial court, including the excusal of two prospective jurors, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on pre‑filing delay, and various evidentiary rulings.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, upholding the death sentence and the admission of the defendant's statements to a court‑retained psychiatrist. The Court held that earlier police interrogations violated Miranda, but the defendant’s later statements were admissible because he voluntarily initiated…

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of death, holding that the corpus delicti rule was satisfied for the attempted robbery conviction and that the undercover statements were admissible because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached.

The California Supreme Court affirmed McDaniel’s convictions and death sentence, holding that the trial court’s Batson/Wheeler analysis was supported by substantial evidence, that the firearm seized during a lawful traffic stop was admissible, and that the state constitution does not require unanimity or a…

The California Supreme Court held that a landowner who hires an independent contractor is not liable for injuries caused by a known hazard on the premises when the contractor could not avoid the hazard with reasonable safety precautions, absent the landowner's retained control that affirmatively contributes to the…

The court held that a petitioner who files a facially sufficient petition under Penal Code section 1170.95 and requests counsel is entitled to appointed counsel before the parties brief the prima facie issue.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding third‑party culpability evidence, victim character evidence, and a booking photograph, and that the admission of prosecution photographs and prior sexual offense evidence was proper.

The California Supreme Court held that a defendant whose state prison sentence is suspended while on probation is not yet final for purposes of the Estrada presumption when the defendant can still obtain direct review of the order revoking probation.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, upholding Maurice Steskal’s death sentence for the murder of Deputy Bradley Riches. The Court rejected Steskal’s claims that the trial court erred in refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction, abused its discretion in admitting evidentiary…

The California Supreme Court affirmed Byron Wilson’s death sentence, holding that the identification procedures were not unduly suggestive, the admission of Brown’s preliminary hearing testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause, and the trial court was correct in not giving a second‑degree murder instruction…

The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's order granting Kenneth Humphrey a new bail hearing, holding that pretrial detention cannot be imposed solely because a defendant cannot afford bail.

The California Supreme Court held that employers may not round time punches for meal periods and that time records showing missed, short, or delayed meal periods create a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations at the summary judgment stage, reversing the Court of Appeal and remanding for further adjudication.

The California Supreme Court reversed the death sentence because the trial court improperly excused jurors for cause solely on their general opposition to the death penalty, but affirmed the murder convictions.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the death‑qualification process for jurors does not violate statutory, constitutional, or international law; the warrantless entry into the defendant's trailer was justified by exigent circumstances; and the defendant's Miranda waiver was knowing…