“So-Called” Identity Theft Is Not Covered by Prop. 47
September 7th, 2020
People v. Jimenez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 53 held that misuse of identifying information in violation of PC 530.5(a) cannot be reclassified as shoplifting because section 530.5(a) is not a theft offense. (Jimenez, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 58-59; see also People v. Harrell (Aug. 10, 2020, A156017) ___ Cal.App.1st ___ .) Jimenez discusses several reasons […]
Tags: CC 1703, CC 2040, CC 2042, CC 2043, CC 2044, Identity Theft, Proposition 47, Theft
CSC Neither Tightens Nor Lessens Standard of Prejudice for Alternate Theory Error
September 4th, 2020
People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1 a divided court held that the same standard of prejudice which applies to the misdescription or omission of elements of the charge applies to alternate theory error: i.e., instruction on both a correct and incorrect theory of guilt: “the same Chapman analysis of harmless error applies to alternative-theory […]
Tags: Appeal, Standard of Prejudice
SB 1437 and Attempted Murder
August 27th, 2020
A recurring issue in Court of Appeal opinions is whether SB 1437 applies to attempted murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and there is currently a split in authority. The California Supreme will consider this issue in People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, review granted 11/13/2019 (S258175/B271516). See this post: Two […]
Tags: Accomplice Liability, Aider and Abettor, Appeal, Attempted Murder, CC 400, CC 401, CC 402, CC 403, CC 415, CC 416, CC 417, CC 521, CC 600, CC 601, Chiu Doctrine, Natural and Probable Consequences, PC 1170.95, Premeditation and Deliberation, Retroactivity, SB 1437
Dismissal of Deliberating Juror: “Great Caution” and “Heightened Standard of Review” are Required
August 20th, 2020
A trial court may dismiss a juror if the court finds the juror is “unable to perform his or her duty.” (PC 1089; People v. Armstrong (2016) 1 C5th 432, 450.) Dismissal may be appropriate, for example, when a juror is emotionally unable to continue or expresses a fixed conclusion at the beginning of deliberations […]
Tags: Holdout Juror, Jury Deliberation
Deficiencies in Defense Evidence Cannot Make up for Shortcomings in Prosecution’s Evidence
August 13th, 2020
[Update of February 3rd, 2015 post] People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal. 4th 659 provides an important clarification of the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof: “…[D]eficiencies in the defense case [cannot] make up for shortcomings in [the prosecution’s case].” (Id., at 673.) For example, in People v. Brito (Sep. 19, 2019, […]
Tags: Appeal, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Burden Of Proof, CC 100, CC 101, CC 220, Defense Theory Instructions, Lesser Included Offenses, Misstatement Of Law, Presumption of Innocence, Prosecutor Misconduct, Sample Instructions, Standard of Prejudice
Proposition 47 Applies to Joy Riding Because Temporary Taking Is LIO of Permanent Taking
August 7th, 2020
Proposition 47 provides that theft of $950 or less is just a misdemeanor. People v. Page (2017) 3 C5th 1175 held that a violation of VC 10851 (aka joyriding) for stealing a car worth $950 or less is covered by Proposition 47. However, VC 10851 describes both taking the car and driving the car and […]
Tags: CC 1800, CC 1801, CC 1802, CC 1820, CC 1822, Felony Taking or Driving a Vehicle, Joyriding, Proposition 47, Theft
CSC Clarifies Exception to Proposition 47 in Cases Involving Forgery and Identity Theft
July 1st, 2020
Proposition 47 reduced the punishment for certain nonserious, nonviolent crimes previously classified as “wobblers,” which were punishable either as a felony or as a misdemeanor. Among the offenses it amended was forgery not exceeding $950 dollars. (PC 473(b).) However, Proposition 47 is not “applicable to any person who is convicted both of forgery and of […]
Tags: CC 1801, Proposition 47
Judge’s Duty to Hold Competency Hearing
June 30th, 2020
Habeas relief was granted in In re Galaviz (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 491, vacating defendant’s NGI commitment because the trial court failed to hold a competency hearing at the time of his trial. Defendant had initially been found incompetent but was restored to competency after being housed in the state hospital before trial, based on a […]
Tags: CC 3451, Competency of Defendant
Competency and Faretta Self Representation
June 20th, 2020
In In re Sims (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 195 the defendant, an attorney with a pre-existing history of mental illness, was convicted of murdering her husband. Earlier in the proceedings, a doubt was declared about her competency, but the trial court found her competent and later allowed her to proceed in pro per. During the trial, […]
Tags: CC 3451, Competency of Defendant
Competency: (1) No Specific Medical Diagnosis Required (2) Ability to Both Understand Nature of Proceedings and Assist Counsel Is Required
June 10th, 2020
Under both the federal due process clause as interpreted by Dusky v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 40, and Penal Code section 1367, a finding of incompetency does “not require a specific medical diagnosis drawn from the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, [or] that the defendant’s mental disorder fit […]
Tags: CC 3451, Competency of Defendant
