WPC;* hvs 37`Ζc7WE & [ z a 9ҶFK~B8ћ!2fHoʰE u۪I ) ^~h>r>Hn5gPuRܜߢq' [`ϖNI'Fԃ'z9ѭ?G:{A!#'$εB_GO\Jǐ9 7VE J>(R&M(~/iDnZDigFJ8E$佑&2Y튿==5zK׭gYY՝*9NL<*R4lABosL 6VWG 8Mp-%15Ob!-a} {u$^̳=(Sƙ~;-+XnL=kTWJ_1[;bkPG"o$\c}Z#UN % 0Y ^ b wn 4r   m N U @ 1u 72e 08A 0D B 0<9 0Uu 0 ; 0& 0 0 0Q 0 0 0F 0 0 0k 0 0 0n 0 0 0? 0 0U 0 0 0 0' 0 0] 0 0{ 0<  ;;F /""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1+#+# 0c# 0w$ 0$ 0% 0% 0f& 0-' 0( 0D(HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,ԖI< gg:eremy3|xU(A Z(Times New Roman 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(Vm$0   (#$  0   d<:Footnote Ref*+ (_2623  ..*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   page page chapter volume footnote endnote *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` (_(2 $ !KXXUSUS.,      0  *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  <:Default Para  ! $KXXUSUS.,    1    _PenalCodesection1050,subdivision(a),providesinrelevantpart: criminal  casesshallbegivenprecedenceover,andsetfortrialandheardwithoutregardtothe  pendencyof,anycivilmattersorproceedings.  ! $KXXUSUS.,    2    _InPatev.Robinson(1966)383U.S.375,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheld  thatdueprocessrequirestrialcourtstosuspendcriminalproceedingsandholda  competencyhearingwhenfacedwithsubstantialevidenceofthedefendants  incompetence,irrespectiveofwhetheradoubthasbeendeclared. %    QRSTUVWXxG/CEIMQUY]aAutoList11)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(#  !KXXUSUS.,  _   KK#KK#  KK RdQ K@@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  #RdQQ Rd#TRAININGSEMINAR#KQRd#RdQK RdQQRd L @@VV"@@VV"# KQ Rd#  KJanuary30,2010 H # K L# ,A  K  SELECTEDCASESPENDINGINTHE  L CALIFORNIASUPREMECOURT   # K  ,A# ,A  K@*# K  ,A#  KԈ  @@00$JeremyPrice 8  # ##K#K    \   # ##K#  8Kdd86`"TABLEOFCONTENTS  J   `    1y,  PrivilegeAgainstSelf-Incrimination""J(#..1  Vm  Vmy0     PretrialLineupsandForfeiture#""J(#.  )(#(##1Vmy݌   Ќ  Vm  VmH0     DNA,ArrestWarrants,andStatutesofLimitations#""J(#.;(#(##2VmHd݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm)0     SearchIncidenttoArrest#""J(#.& & #(#(##4Vm)E݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CompulsoryProcess#""J(#. (#(##5Vm ݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     Discovery#""J(#.""(#(##5Vm ݌   Ќ  Vm  Vmm 0     SpeedyTrialRights#""J(#.j j (#(##8Vmm ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm0 0     CompetenceToStandTrial#P"P"I(#.#(#(##10Vm0 L ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     Confrontation#P"P"I(#.n n (#(##11Vm  ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     HomicideandCollateralEstoppel#P"P"I(#.$$*(#(##12Vm ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm 0     SexOffensesandtheDefenseofConsent#P"P"I(#.1(#(##13Vm ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vma0     GangCrimesandEnhancements#P"P"I(#.&(#(##13Vma}݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm.0     Robbery#P"P"I(#.(#(##14Vm.J݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm0     ProbationandPleaBargains#P"P"I(#.FF%(#(##15Vm݌ ! Ќ  Vm  Vm0     RapeShieldLaw#P"P"I(#. (#(##16Vm݌ # Ќ  Vm  Vmr0     PresumptionofInnocence#P"P"I(#. "(#(##17Vmr݌ %!! Ќ  Vm  Vm;0     VictimRestitution#P"P"I(#. (#(##18Vm;W݌ '## Ќ  Vm  Vm0     ParoleHearings#P"P"I(#.  (#(##19Vm݌ )%% Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CivilCommitment#P"P"I(#.  (#(##20  n @ Vm݌ +'' 6`" 6   6  ь  PrivilegeAgainstSelfIncrimination   Peoplev._Lessie_,no.S163453(rev.gr.July23,2008)  0  QuestionPresented: Isaminorsrequestduringpoliceinterrogationtospeaktoa  parentaninvocationoftheprivilegeagainstself-incriminationthatrenders   statementsmadeaftertherequestinadmissible? (#(#    ` 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedonNovember3,2009 (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:161_Cal.App_.4th1085(no.D050019,filedApril8,2008).The   SixthDistrictCourtofAppealrejectedappellantscontentionthatwhenevera   juvenileaskstospeaktohisorherparent,interrogationmustcease.Instead,the   CourtofAppealheldthat,followingtheadoptionofProposition8,thefederal   totalityofthecircumstancesstandardistobeappliedtoaminordefendantsclaim   thathisorherstatementswereelicitedinviolationofMiranda.(#(# 0  Note:_Lessie_ԀwillrequiretheSupremeCourttorevisitPeoplev.Burton(1971)6  Cal.3d375,383-384,whichheldthat when,asintheinstantcase,aminoris  takenintocustodyandissubjectedtointerrogation,withoutthepresenceofan  attorney,hisrequesttoseeoneofhisparents,madeatanytimepriortoorduring  questioning,mustintheabsenceofevidencedemandingacontraryconclusion,be  construedtoindicatethattheminorsuspectdesirestoinvokehisFifthAmendment  privilege.(#(#  Pretrial LineupsandForfeiture   Peoplev._Mena_,no.S173973(rev.gr.August26,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: Diddefendantforfeithisrighttoappealthedenialofhis ! requestforaphysicalidentificationlineuppriortothepreliminaryhearing(see " Evansv.SuperiorCourt(1974)11Cal.3d617)becausehefailedtoseek # immediatereviewoftherulingbyfilingapetitionforwritofmandate?$ (#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Appellantsreplybriefdue&""(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:173_Cal.App_.4th1446(no.D052091,filedMay19,2009). ($$ DivisionOneoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: First,weconcludea )%% defendantsrighttoreliefiswaivedifhedoesnotchallengeanadverserulingbya *&& timelypretrialpetitionforaperemptorywrit.TheCourtofAppealfurtherheld: +''  Evenassumingtheclaimoferrorispreservedandthetrialcourtabusedits  discretionwhenitdeniedthemotion,weconcludeanyallegederrorwasharmless  beyondareasonabledoubt.(#(# 0  Note:InEvans,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtconcluded dueprocessrequires  inanappropriatecasethatanaccused,upontimelyrequesttherefor,beaffordeda   pretriallineupinwhichwitnessestotheallegedcriminalconductcanparticipate.   Therighttoalineuparises,however,onlywheneyewitnessidentificationisshown   tobeamaterialissueandthereexistsareasonablelikelihoodofamistaken   identificationwhichalineupwouldtendtoresolve.TheCaliforniaSupreme   Courtinthiscasewillbecalledontodecidewhetherthefailuretoseekpretrial   writreliefonthisissueamountstononcompliancewiththe timelyrequest   requirementannouncedinEvans. (#(#  DNA,ArrestWarrants,andStatutesofLimitations   Peoplev.Robinson,no.S158528(rev.gr.February13,2008)  0  QuestionPresented:(1) DoestheissuanceofaJohnDoecomplaintandarrest  warranttimelycommenceacriminalactionandtherebysatisfythestatuteof  limitations?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2) DoesanunknownsuspectsDNAprofilesatisfytheparticularity  requirementforanarrestwarrant?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (3) Whatremedyisthere,ifany,fortheunlawfulcollectionofgeneticmaterial  undertheDNAandForensicIdentificationDataBaseandDataBankActof1998  (Pen.Code,section295etseq.)?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (4)Whatis theeffect,ifany,oftheholdinginHerringv.UnitedStates(2009)__ ! U.S.__.129_S.Ct_.695,ontheissueofwhethertheexclusionaryruleappliesto " bloodsamplesmistakenlycollectedfromdefendantRobinsonbylawenforcement # forinclusioninourstateDNAdatabase?$ (#(# 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedDecisiondueonJanuary25,2010&!"(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:156_Cal.App_.4th508(C044703,filedOctober26,2007).The (#$ ThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheld: thestatuteoflimitationsforasexualoffense )$% issatisfiedwhentheprosecutioniscommencedwithintheperiodoflimitationsby *%& thefilingofanarrestwarrantpredicatedupontheidentificationoftheperpetrator +&' byaDNAprofile.(See_Pen.Code_,804,_subd_.(d).)AccordingtotheCourtof  Appeal: theDNAprofileoftheperpetratorofasexualoffenseincorporatedinan  arrestwarrantprovidestheparticularityofidentificationofanoffenderrequiredby  [PenalCode]section804.(#(# ̀0  Note:InHerringv.UnitedStates(2009)__U.S.__.129_S.Ct_.695,theUnited   StatesSupremeCourtconsideredthescopeofthegoodfaithexceptiontothe   FourthAmendmentexclusionaryruleandheld: Totriggertheexclusionaryrule,   policeconductmustbesufficientlydeliberatethatexclusioncanmeaningfully   deterit,andsufficientlyculpablethatsuchdeterrenceisworththepricepaidbythe   justicesystem.Aslaidoutinourcases,theexclusionaryruleservestodeter   deliberate,reckless,orgrosslynegligentconduct,orinsomecircumstances   recurringorsystemicnegligence. (#(# _Birotte_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt,no.S176965(rev.gr.November10,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: Whenistheidentityofasuspectconclusivelyestablishedby  DNAtestingforpurposesoftheone-yearstatuteoflimitationsunderPenalCode  section803,subdivision(g)(1)?(#(# 0  Status:Respondentsanswerbriefdue(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:177_Cal.App_.4th559(B213606,filedSeptember8,2009).  DivisionSevenoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: theadditional  one-yearlimitationsperioddoesnotbeginatleastuntilqualifiedlaboratory  personnelfullyevaluateandverifythedatageneratedbytheinitial,automated  computermatchbetweentheDNAprofiledevelopedfromasuspectsbiological  sampleandtheDNAprofiledevelopedfromevidentiarysources,including  biologicalmaterialsleftbyperpetratorsatcrimescenesorobtainedfromvictim   examinations.Indeed,althoughasapracticalmatteritmayeliminateany ! limitationsperiodforcrimestowhich[PenalCode]section803(g)(1)applies,a " reasonableinterpretationofthestatutorylanguage,viewedincontext,suggeststhe # additionalone-yearlimitationsperioddoesnotcommenceuntilabiologicalsample $  hasbeenobtainedwithasufficientchainofcustodyfortheDNAprofile %!! developedfromittobeadmissibleinevidence,thatDNAprofilehasbeen &"" matchedtoaDNAprofiledevelopedfromcrimesceneevidenceandstatistical '## analyseshavebeencompletedthatestablishwithsufficientcertaintythesuspectis ($$ thesourceoftheevidentiaryprofile.Becausethecriminalcomplaintwasfiledin )%% thismatterwithinoneyearofeventheearliestofthosepossibletriggerdates,the *&& trialcourtproperlydenied_Birotte_smotiontodismissthechargesasbarredbythe +'' statuteoflimitations.(#(# _0  Note:PenalCodesection803(g)(1)provides: Notwithstandinganyother  limitationoftimedescribedinthischapter,acriminalcomplaintmaybefiled  withinoneyearofthedateonwhichtheidentityofthesuspectisconclusively  establishedbyDNAtesting,ifbothofthefollowingconditionsaremet:[](A)   Thecrimeisonethatisdescribedinsubdivision(c)ofSection290.[](B)The   offensewascommittedpriortoJanuary1,2001,andbiologicalevidencecollected   inconnectionwiththeoffenseisanalyzedforDNAtypenolaterthanJanuary1,   2004,ortheoffensewascommittedonorafterJanuary1,2001,andbiological   evidencecollectedinconnectionwiththeoffenseisanalyzedforDNAtypeno   laterthantwoyearsfromthedateoftheoffense. (#(#  SearchIncidenttoArrest    Peoplev.Diaz,no.S166600(rev.gr.October28,2008)  0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Wasdefendantscellphoneanitemimmediately  associatedwiththepersonofthe_arrestee_withinthemeaningofUnitedStatesv.  Edwards(1974)415U.S.800,andthussubjecttosearchincidenttohisarrest?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2) Wasthewarrantlesssearchofthecellphoneanhourandahalfafterthe  arrest,whiledefendantwasbeinginterrogated,invalidunderUnitedStatesv.  _Chadwick_Ԁ(1977)433U.S.1?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (3)InlightofthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinArizonav.Gant  (Apr.21,2009,No.07-542)__U.S.__[129_S.Ct_.,1710,173_L.Ed_.2d485,2009  WL1045962],theCaliforniaSupremeCourtorderedsupplementalbriefingonthe  followingquestion: May_Ԁpolice,whileinterrogatingasuspectabout90minutes   afterarrestinghimandtransportinghimtothestation,conductawarrantless ! searchofinformationcontainedinacellphonethatwasonthesuspectspersonat " thetimeofhisarrest?#(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed% !(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:165_Cal.App_.4th732(B203034,filedJuly302008).DivisionSix '"# oftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: thecellphonewasimmediately (#$ associatedwithDiazspersonatthetimeofhisarrest,andwasthereforeproperly )$% subjectedtoadelayedwarrantlesssearch.*%&(#(# 0  +&'(#(# 0  Note:TheCourtofAppealissueditsdecisioninthiscasebeforetheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtdecidedGant,whichheldthatNewYorkv._Belton_Ԁ(1981)453U.S.  454 doesnotauthorizeavehiclesearchincidenttoarecentoccupantsarrestafter  the_arrestee_Ԁhasbeensecuredandcannotaccesstheinteriorofthevehicle.Gant  furtherheld: circumstancesuniquetotheautomobilecontextjustifyasearch  incidenttoarrestwhenitisreasonabletobelievethatevidenceoftheoffenseof   arrestmightbefoundinthevehicle. (#(#  CompulsoryProcess    Peoplev._Jacinto_,no.S164011(rev.gr.July30,2008)   0  QuestionPresented: Wasdefendantdeniedhisconstitutionalrightstocompulsory   processanddueprocesswhenthesheriffsdepartmentreleasedasubpoenaed   defensewitnesstofederalimmigrationauthoritiesfordeportationpriorto   defendantstrial?(#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:162_Cal.App_.4th373(no.A117076,filedApril23,2008).  DivisionFiveoftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheldthat thetrialcourterred  whenitconcludedthatthesheriff'sdepartmentsactofreleasing[thesubpoenaed  defensewitness]tofederalcustodywasstateaction,anecessaryprerequisitetoa  compulsoryprocessclaim.Inaddition,theCourtofAppealheld: Without  knowledgeofthematerialityofthedeportedwitnessstestimony,therewasno  violationofappellantsrightstocompulsoryordueprocess,andthetrialcourt  erredingrantingthemotiontodismiss.(#(# 0  Note:OnekeyquestionfortheSupremeCourtwillbethevalidityoftheCourtof   Appealsassertionthat theactionofthesheriffsdepartmentorcountyjail ! personnelmaynotbeattributedtotheprosecutionbecause thesheriffs " departmentwasnomorethanthecustodianof[the]witnessandtherefore was # notapartoftheprosecutorialinvestigativeteam.$ (#(#  Discovery  &!"  Barnettv.SuperiorCourt,no.S165522(rev.gr.September17,2008) (#$ 0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Isanout-of-statelawenforcementagencypartofthe *%& prosecutionteamforpurposesofthedisclosureobligationsunderBradyv. +&' Maryland(1963)373U.S.83,iftheagencysinvolvementislimitedtoproviding  theprosecutionwithpreviouslyexistingrecordsregardingadefendantsprior  crimes?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2) Isaprisonerseekingpost-convictiondiscoveryunderPenalCodesection  1054.9requiredtoproduceevidenceindicatingtheactualexistenceofthe   discoverymaterialheorsheisrequesting? (#(# 0  (3) Isaprisonerseekingpost-convictiondiscoveryundersection1054.9required   topleadatheoryindicatingthematerialityofthematerialsrequestedifthebasis   fordiscoveryistheprosecutorsBradyobligationtodiscloseexculpatory   materials? (#(# 0  (4) Issection1054.9unconstitutionalasanunauthorizedlegislativeamendment   tothecriminaldiscoveryschemeestablishedbyProposition115?(#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:164_Cal.App_.4th18(no.C051311,filedJune19,2008).The  ThirdDistrictCourtofAppealheld,interalia,: eveniftheout-of-statelaw  enforcementagencieswerenotpartoftheprosecutionteam,thePeopleused  thoseagenciestoassistintheirprosecutionofthecapitalcaseagainstBarnett.  Accordingly,thePeoplehadconstructivepossessionofinformationpossessedby  thoseagencies,andthePeoplesconstitutionaldutytodiscloseexculpatory  informationextendedtoinformationinthepossessionofthoseagencies.(#(# 0  Note:ThiscapitalcaseisrelatedtotheautomaticappealinPeoplev.Barnett  (1998)17Cal.4th1044.InPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Pearson),no.S171117,the  SupremeCourthasorderedbriefingonthesameissueidentifiedinquestion   number4above.Pearsonhasbeenfullybriefedaswell.!(#(# _Galindo_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt,no.S170550(rev.gr.March25,2009) # 0  QuestionPresented: Doesacriminaldefendanthavearighttoobtain_Pitchess_ %!! discovery(_Pitchess_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt(1974)11Cal.3d531)priortothe &"" preliminaryhearing?'##(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed)%%(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:169_Cal.App_.4th1332(B208923,filedJanuary7,2009).Division +'' EightoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: adefendantmaynotseek  _Pitchess_Ԁdiscoveryforuseinapreliminaryhearing.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:In1974,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtruledin_Pitchess_Ԁthatacriminal  defendantmaydiscoverevidenceofcitizencomplaintsallegingmisconductbylaw  enforcementofficersifthatmisconductassistsinthedefense.In1978,the   CaliforniaLegislaturecodifiedproceduresgoverning_Pitchess_Ԁdiscoveryat   EvidenceCodesections1043to1045.(Seealso_Pen.Code_,832.7,832.8   [definingofficerspersonnelrecordssubjectto_Pitchess_discovery].)Neitherthe   LegislaturenortheSupremeCourt,however,haspreviouslyaddressedthe   availabilityof_Pitchess_Ԁdiscoverypriortoapreliminaryhearing. (#(# _Kling_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt,no.S176171(rev.gr.November10,2009)   0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Whatroledoestheprosecutionhaveinanincamera  hearingtodeterminewhethertodisclosethirdpartydocumentstothedefense?(#(# 0  (2) Istheprosecutionentitledtoinformationatthattimeaboutthedocuments  subpoenaedandfromwhomtheyweresubpoenaed,orissuchdisclosureonly  required(seePen.Code,_seccion_Ԁ1054.3)oncethedefensedecidestousethe  documentsattrial?(#(# 0  Status:Appellantsanswerbriefdue(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:177_Cal.App_.4th223(B208748,filedAugust31,2009).Division  SixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Absentexceptional  circumstances,theprosecutionmaynotknowwhothedefensehassubpoenaedor  whatdocumentsweresubpoenaedunlessthedefensedecidestousethemattrial.  Theprosecutionisthenentitledtodiscoverypursuanttothereciprocaldiscovery   provisionsof[PenalCode]section1054.3.At[PenalCode]section1326hearings, ! theprosecutionisoftenseenbutnotheard.Theprosecutionscompelledsilence " maybebrokenwhenthecourtcallsuponittoaddressanyquestionsthetrialcourt # has.([Citation].)Thisislikelytooccurwhenthesubpoenaconcernsprivacy $  rightsofthirdparties.%!!(#(# 0  Note:InPeoplev.SuperiorCourt(HumbertoS.)(2008)43Cal.4th737,the '## SupremeCourtleftunansweredthequestiontowhatextenttheprosecutionmay ($$ participateduringincamerahearingstodeterminewhetherthedefendantis )%% entitledtoreceivedocumentssubpoenaedpursuanttoPenalCodesection1326.It *&& appearstheCourthasnowdecidedtoanswerthatquestion.+''(#(#  SpeedyTrialRights   Peoplev.Sutton,no.S166402(rev.gr.October28,2008)  0  QuestionPresented: Weredefendantsstatutoryspeedytrialrightsviolatedwhen   defensecounselannouncedreadybutthathemightbeinanothertrial,andthe   courtcontinuedtrialforsixdaysoverdefendantspersonalobjection,andifso,   wastheerrorprejudicial? (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:165Cal.App.4th646(B195337,filedJuly30,2008).Division   ThreeoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: anappointedcounsels   presentengagementinanothermatterisgoodcausetocontinuethejointtrialof   jointlychargeddefendants.(#(# 0  Note:ThiscasewillleadtheSupremeCourttorevisitPeoplev.Johnson(1980)26  Cal.3d557,whichheldthatwhenaclientexpresslyobjectstowaivinghisorher  righttoaspeedytrialunderPenalCodesection1382, counselmaynotwaive[the  speedytrial]righttoresolveacalendarconflictwhencounselactsnotforthe  benefitoftheclientbeforethecourtbuttoaccommodatecounselsotherclients.  Inthiscase,thequestioniswhetherJohnsonsholdingshouldbeextendedto  includecounselsongoingengagementsinanothermatter(asopposedtocounsel  givingpreferencetoothermattersinwhichcounselisnotyetpresentlyengaged).(#(# Peoplev._Hajjaj_,no.S175307(rev.gr.September30,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: Wasdefendantdeniedhisstatutoryrighttoaspeedytrial   wherethetrialcourtfoundgoodcauseforaone-daycontinuancewhena ! courtroombecameavailableonthelastdayfortrialbutitwastoofarawaytobe " reachedbeforethenormalcloseofbusinessonthatday?#(#(# 0  Status:Respondentsanswerbriefdue% !(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:175Cal.App.4th415(D054754,filedJune29,2009).Division '"# OneoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: when,onthelastdayofthe (#$ statutorilyprescribedtimeperiodforcommencementoftrialinacriminalcase,a )$% courtroombecomesreadyandavailablefortrialinthelateafternoonatabranch *%& courtthatisphysicallyremotefromthecriminalcalendarcourtatthemain +&' courthouseandthatremotenesspreventsthepartiesandcounselfromappearing  fortrialthatday,thephysicalremotenessconstitutesgoodcausewithinthe  meaningof[PenalCode]section1382(a)tocommencethetrialthenextdayatthe  branchcourt.(#(# 0  Note:PenalCodesection1382provides,inrelevantpart: Thecourt,unlessgood   causetothecontraryisshown,shallordertheactiontobedismissedinthe   followingcases:[]...[](2)Inafelonycase,whenadefendantisnotbrought   totrialwithin60daysofthedefendantsarraignmentonan...information....   However,anactionshallnotbedismissedunderthisparagraphifeitherofthe   followingcircumstancesexist:[]...[](B)Thedefendantrequestsorconsents   tothesettingofatrialdatebeyondthe60-dayperiod.Wheneveracaseissetfor   trialbeyondthe60-dayperiodbyrequestorconsent,expressedorimplied,ofthe   defendantwithoutageneralwaiver,thedefendantshallbebroughttotrialonthe   datesetfortrialorwithin10daysthereafter.(Pen.Code,1382,_subd_.(a)(2)(B),  italicsadded.)TheSupremeCourtsfocuswilllikelybeonthemeaningofthe  phrases goodcauseand broughttotrial,asusedinPenalCodesection1382.  TheSupremeCourtpreviouslyaddressedthemeaningofbothphrasesin_Rhinehart_  v.MunicipalCourt(1984)35Cal.3d772.(#(# Peoplev.Wagner,no.S175794(rev.gr.September30,2009)  0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Didthetrialcourterrindismissingthiscasefor  violationofdefendantsstatutoryrighttoaspeedytrialonthegroundnocriminal  courtroomwasavailable?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2) Shouldcriminalcasesfacingdismissalonspeedytrialgroundsbegiven  precedenceovercivilcasespursuanttoPenalCodesection1050,subdivision(a),  eitherasamatteroflaworunderthecircumstancesofthiscase? (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed"(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:175_Cal.App_.4th1377(E047167,filedJuly21,2009).Division $  TwooftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheldthatthetrialcourt properly %!! e_xercised_Ԁitsdiscretioninfindingnoavailablecourtrooms[]andindenyingthe &"" Peoplesrequestforacontinuanceduetocourtcongestion.TheCourtofAppeal '## continued: Consequently,...dismissalwasnecessaryinordertoavoida ($$ violationofdefendantsstatutoryspeedytrialrights.)%%(#(# 0  Note:Determiningwhethercriminalcasesfacingdismissalonspeedytrialgrounds +'' shouldbegivenprecedenceovercivilcasespursuanttoPenalCodesection1050,  subdivision(a)3 #  1      ,willrequiretheSupremeCourttorevisitPeoplev._Osslo_Ԁ(1958)  50Cal.2d75,whichheld,inpart: Theprecedencetowhichcriminalcasesare  entitledisnotofsuchanabsoluteandoverridingcharacter....Thesameissues  presentedinthiscasearealsounderreviewinPeoplev.Engram,no.S176983.(#(#  CompetenceToStandTrial    Peoplev._Ary_,no.S173309(rev.gr.July29,2009)   0   (#(# 0  QuestionsPresented: Ataretrospectivecompetencyhearing,doestheprosecution   orthedefendantbeartheburdenofprovingcompetencebyapreponderanceofthe   evidence? (#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed (#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:173_Cal.App_.4th80(no.A113020,filedApril20,2009).  DivisionTwooftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheld: thepresumptionof  competencycreatedbythePenalCode(1369,_subd_.(f))wasdesignedtoapply  onlytocompetencyhearingsconductedduringthependencyofacriminalaction,  nottoa_postsentencing_Ԁhearingconducted_nunc_Ԁpro_tunc_ԀafteraPate[4 #  2      ]violation.  Becausethefundamentalfairnessimplicitintheconceptofdueprocesscreatesa  _rebuttable_ԀpresumptionofincompetencyuponthevindicationofaPateclaim,the  burdenataretrospectivehearinglieswiththeprosecutiontoshowbya  preponderanceoftheevidencethatthedefendantwascompetenttostandtrialat  thetimehewastried.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:AstheCourtofAppealnoted,thequestionoftheproperburdenofproofata  retrospectivecompetencyhearinghasneverbeenaddressedbyCalifornias   LegislatureorbyCongress,andperhapsnotbyanystatelegislatures.TheUnited ! StatesSupreme_Court_Ԁhasheldthatplacingtheburdenofproofonthedefendantto " proveincompetencyatthetimeoftrialorsentencingisnotinconsistentwith  federaldueprocessprinciples.(Medinav.California(1992)505U.S.437.)This  appealisthesecond_Ary_Ԁappeal,withthepreviousonehavingbeenthefirst  Californiacasetoauthorizearetrospectivecompetencyhearing.(Peoplev._Ary_  (2004)118_Cal.App_.4th1016.)(#(#  Confrontation      Peoplev._Herrera_,no.S171895(rev.gr.May20,2009)   0  QuestionPresented: Didthetrialcourterrindeterminingthataprosecution   witnesswhohadbeendeportedandcouldnotbeextraditedtotheUnitedStates,   wasunavailablewithinthemeaningofEvidenceCodesection240,orwasthe   prosecutionrequiredtoshowfurtherduediligencetoestablishtheunavailabilityof   thewitnessbeforeintroducingthewitnessspriortestimonyfromthepreliminary   hearing?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2009WL498627(no.G039028,filedFebruary26,2009).  DivisionThreeoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Defendantsappeal  assertsthatthecourterredinpermittingawitnessspreliminaryhearingtestimony  tobereadintoevidenceafterthewitnesscouldnotbefound.Forreasonsstated  below,weagreetheprosecutionfailedtoexerciseduediligenceandthecourt  erredinpermittingthistestimonytoberead.Wethereforereversethejudgment.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:ThiscasewillrequiretheSupremeCourttoapplytheunavailabilitystandard  itarticulatedinPeoplev._Cromer_Ԁ(2001)24Cal.4th889: Generally,awitnessis  notunavailableforpurposesoftherightofconfrontationunlesstheprosecutorial   authoritieshavemadeagood-faithefforttoobtain[thewitnesss]presenceat ! trial.[Citations.](Aswementionedattheoutset,andasweexplainindetail " later,underCalifornialawtheprosecutionmustshowreasonableorduediligence # inlocatingthewitness.)$ (#(# OnDecember2,2009,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtgrantedreviewinseveralcases &!" dealingwiththeUnited_States_ԀSupremeCourtsrecentdecisionin_Melendez_ԄDiazv. '"# Massachusetts(2009)557U.S.___,129_S.Ct_.2257,whichheldthatlaboratoryreports (#$ aretestimonialhearsayevidencewithinthemeaningofCrawfordandareinadmissiblein )$% acriminalproceedingunlessthepersoncreatingthereportisunavailableandthe *%& defendanthadaprioropportunitytocross-examinethecreator.Richard_Braucher_Ԁhas +&' preparedapresentationexaminingtheimpactof_Melendez_ԄDiazforthisseminar.  Therefore,thesematerialswillonlylistthecaseswherereviewhasbeengrantedto  addressthisissuewithoutfurtherdiscussion:  0  Peoplev._Dungo_,no.S1768860(#(#(#(# 0  Peoplev.Gutierrez,no.S176620 (#(# 0  Peoplev.Lopez,no.S177046 (#(# 0  Peoplev.Rutterschmidt,no.S176213 (#(#  HomicideandCollateralEstoppel    Peoplev.SuperiorCourt(Sparks),no.S164614   0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Didprinciplesofcollateralestoppel,asappliedin   Peoplev.Taylor(1974)12Cal.3d686,precludetheprosecutionfromtrying   defendantformurderonafelony-murdertheoryaftertheactualkillerhadbeen  acquittedofmurderonsuchatheory?(#(# 0  (2) IsTaylorstillgoodlaw,orshouldthatdecisionbeoverruledordisapproved?(#(# 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedonDecember8,2009(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2008WL2316504(no.C057766,filedJune6,2008).Thetrial  courtruledthat thedoctrineofcollateralestoppelprecludedpetitioner(the  People)fromtryingrealpartyininterest([thedefendant])forfelonymurderbased  onaplantostealmarijuanaplantsthatresultedinthekillingoftwopeople.The  superiorcourtsrulingwasbasedonthefactthatseparatejuriesinseparatetrials  foundthattwootherswhoalsowereinvolvedintheplantostealmarijuana[]were  eithernotguiltyofanycrimes,includingfelonymurder,orguiltyonlyofthelesser   includedoffenseofvoluntarymanslaughter.TheThirdDistrictCourtofAppeal ! reversedandheld: thedoctrineofcollateralestoppeldoesnotapplyherewhere " [thedefendants]allegedguiltisnotpremisedsolelyonvicariousliabilityandthe # evidencetobeintroducedathistrialisdifferentthantheevidenceintheothertwo $  trials.TheCourtofAppealthereforegranted thePeoplespetitionforawritof % ! mandatetocompelthesuperiorcourttovacateitsorderbarringthePeoplefrom &!" trying[thedefendant]forcrimesgreaterthanvoluntarymanslaughter.'"#(#(# 0  Note:InTaylor,theCourtaddressedwhetheradefendantsmurderconvictionwas )$% barredbyapplicationofthedoctrineofcollateralestoppelbasedontheprior *%& acquittalofhisconfederateofthesamecharge.TheCourtreversedthedefendants +&' murderconviction,becausethedefendantsguilt, ifany,ofthemurderchargeis  vicariousandcanbepredicatedonlyontheguiltyconductofhisconfederates.  SincethePeoplefailedtoestablishsuchguiltyconductat[theconfederates]trial,  theyarenowbarredfromrelitigatingthatidenticalissue.TheCourtheld: the  lackofidentityofpartiesdefendantdoesnotprecludetheapplicationofthe  doctrineofcollateralestoppel....But,theCourtlimiteditsholdingto the   particularcircumstancesoftheinstantcasewhereanaccusedsguiltmustbe   predicatedonhisvicariousliabilityfortheactsofapreviouslyacquitted   confederate. (#(#  SexOffensesandtheDefenseofConsent    Peoplev.Soto,S167531(rev.gr.December10,2008)   0  QuestionPresented: Isthevictimsconsentadefensetoachargeofcommitting   lewdactswithachildunder14yearsofagebyuseofforce,violence,duress,  menace,orfearofimmediateandunlawfulbodilyinjury(Pen.Code,288,_ subd_ .  (b))?(#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:WL4147345(no.H030475,filedSeptember9,2008).TheSixth  DistrictCourtofAppealheld: thetrialcourttoldthejurythatconsentwasnota  defensethoughthePeoplewererelyingonduress.Thiswaserroranddeprived  defendantofadefense.Adefendanthasaconstitutionalrighttohavethejury  determineeverymaterialissuepresentedbytheevidence.(#(# 0  Note:AccordingtotheCourtofAppeal: [A]convictionbasedon duress,...  necessarilyimpliesthatthe willofthevictimhasbeenovercome.Therefore,   theCourtofAppealreasoned: Itfollowsthat,whethercharacterizedasa ! substantiveelementoraffirmativedefense,theconceptofconsentisadefensetoa " section288,subdivision(b)(1),chargeifthePeoplerelyonduress.#(#(#  GangCrimesandEnhancements  % ! AnumberofcasesinvolvinggangcrimesandenhancementsarependingintheCalifornia '"# SupremeCourt.Onlythenamesofthesecasesandthequestionspresentedareincluded (#$ here,asJonathan_Soglin_sseminarmaterialsandpresentationon GangCrimesand )$% Enhancementswilldealwiththemingreaterdetail. *%&  +&' Peoplev._Abillar_,no.S163905(rev.gr.August13,2008)  0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Didsubstantialevidencesupportdefendants  convictionsunderPenalCodesection186.22,subdivision(a),andthetruefindings  withrespecttotheenhancementsunderPenalCodesection186.22,subdivision  (b)? (#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2) [_W]hether_Ԁthephrasefeloniouscriminalconduct,appearinginPenalCode   section186.22,subdivision(a)shouldbeinterpretedtomeanfeloniouscriminal   gang-relatedconduct? (#(# Peoplev._Tran_,no.S176923(rev.gr.December12,2009)   0  QuestionPresented: Didthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretioninallowingthe   prosecutiontointroduceevidenceofdefendantsownunchargedcriminalactsin  ordertoproveapatternofcriminalactivityforpurposesofPenalCodesection  186.22,subdivisions(a)and(e)?(#(#  Robbery   Peoplev.Anderson,no.S175351(rev.gr.October14,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: Wasdefendantentitledtoajuryinstruction,withouta  request,onaccidentasadefensetorobbery,and,ifso,wasthecourtsfailureto  givetheinstructionprejudicial?(#(# 0  Status:Respondentsanswerbriefdue(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2009WL1913308(D054740,filedJuly2,2009).DivisionOne   oftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: a[PenalCode]section26defenseof ! accidentwouldnecessarilyapplywhenadefendantonlyaccidentallystrikeshisor " hervictimduring_asportation_Ԁofstolenproperty.Inacaseinwhichthereis # substantialevidencetosupportadefensetheoryofaccident,thetrialcourthasa $  dutytoinstruct_sua_Ԁ_sponte_Ԁonthatdefense.TheCourtofAppealfurther % ! concluded therewassubstantialevidencetosupportthedefenseofaccidenttothe &!" chargeofrobberyandthatdefensewasnotinconsistentwithAndersonsdefense '"# theory(andAnderson,infact,reliedonthatdefensetheory).AlthoughtheCourt (#$ ofAppealheldthetrialcourterredinnotinstructingontheaccidentdefense,it )$% deemedtheinstructionalerror_nonprejudicial_ԀunderbothWatsonandChapman.*%&(#(#  +&' 0  Note:IftheSupremeCourtfindsinstructionalerror,itwilllikelyhavetodecide  whetherWatsonorChapmanapplies.AstheSupremeCourtrecentlynotedin  Peoplev._Salas_(2006)37Cal.4th967,984: Wehavenotyetdeterminedwhattest  ofprejudiceappliestothefailuretoinstructonanaffirmativedefense.(#(#  Probation andPleaBargains      Peoplev.Feyrer,no.S154242(rev.gr.September12,2007)   0  QuestionPresented: Didthetrialcourthavethepower,overthePeoples    objection,todeclaredefendantsoffenseamisdemeanor,terminateprobation,and   dismissthecasewhendefendanthadplednocontesttoafelonychargeofassault   bymeansofforcelikelytoproducegreatbodilyinjuryandhadadmittedan   enhancementforthepersonalinflictionofgreatbodilyinjury? (#(# 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedonJanuary6,2010(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:151Cal.App.4th506(B192752,filedSeptember12,2007).  DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: ifasintheinstantcase,  impositionofsentenceissuspended,judgmentisnotimposedandthetrialcourt  retainsjurisdictionoverthecase.(1203,subd.(a),1203.2,subd.(c),1203.3,  subd.(a);Cal.RulesofCourt,rule4.435(b)(1).)Thisincludesthepowerto  imposejudgmentandsentenceormodifythetermsandconditionsofprobationin  theeventofaviolation,andtograntreductionofawobbleroffensetoa  misdemeanoranddismissthecase.(#(# 0  Note:Whenreviewwasfirstgrantedinthiscase,theSupremeCourtordered  briefingdeferredbehindPeoplev.Segura(2008)44Cal.4th921.TheSupreme  CourtorderedbriefinginthiscaseafterdecidingSegura,whichheld: when,asin   thepresentcase,thepartiesnegotiateapleaagreementthat,amongotherexpress ! provisions,grantsprobationincorporatingandconditionedupontheserviceofa " specifiedjailterm,theresultingtermofincarcerationisnot-andmaynotbe # treatedas-amerestandardconditionofprobation.Rather,thetermof $  incarcerationisinthenatureofaconditionprecedentto,andconstitutesamaterial %!! termof,thepartiesagreement.[Footnote]Assuch,thejailtermisnotsubjectto &"" subsequentmodificationwithouttheconsentofbothparties,andcannotbealtered '## solelyonthebasisofthetrialcourtsgeneralstatutoryauthoritytomodify ($$ probationduringtheprobationaryperiod.)%%(#(#  +'' Peoplev.Martin,no.S175356(rev.gr.October22,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: Canfactorsunderlyingachargedcriminaloffensethatis  dismissedaspartofapleabargainbeconsideredinsettingconditionsofprobation  ifthepleaagreementdidnotincludeaHarveywaiver(Peoplev.Harvey(1979)25  Cal.3d754)permittingthedismissedcounttobeconsideredindeterminingthe   sentencetobeimposed? (#(# 0  Status:Appellantsopeningbriefdue (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:175Cal.App.4th1252(E046579,filedJune24,2009).Division   TwooftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: thecourtwaswellwithinits   discretioninimposingthedomesticviolenceconditionswheretheonlyallegation   ofdomesticviolencestemmedfromadismissedcount,and thecourtwasnot   barredbyHarveyfromimposingthem.(#(# 0  Note:Bygrantingreviewinthiscase,theSupremeCourtwilladdresstheconflict  betweenMartinandtheFifthDistrictCourtofAppealsdecisioninPeoplev.  Beagle(2004)125_Cal.App_.4th415,whichheldthatHarveyappliedtoconditions  ofprobationaswellasprisonsentences.(#(#  RapeShieldLaw    Peoplev.Fontana,no.S170528(rev.gr.April15,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: DidtheCourtofAppealcorrectlyhold(a)thatthe  protectionsoftherapeshieldlaw(Evid.Code,782,1103)didnotapplyinthis  caseduetodefendantsdenialthathehadsexualintercoursewiththevictimand  (b)thatthetrialcourtthuscommittedreversibleerrorwhenitexcludedevidence   thatthevictimhadengagedinconsensualsexualintercoursewithherboyfriendon ! themorningoftheallegedsexualassault?"(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed$ (#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2009WL74347(no.A117503,filedJanuary13,2009).Division &!" FiveoftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Because[]evidence[thealleged '"# victimhadconsensualsexualrelationswithsomeoneotherthanthedefendanton (#$ themorningoftheallegedsexualassault]wasrelevantandadmissibleto )$% corroborateappellantsversionofeventsandshowthatinjuriesattributabletothe *%& assaultcouldhavebeencausedbytheearlierconsensualencounter,andbecause +&' therecorddoesnotestablishthatthisevidencewasharmlessbeyondareasonable  doubt,wereverse.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:TheCourtofAppealappliedthefederalconstitutionalChapmanprejudice  standardofreviewbecausetheerrorviolatedappellantsfederalconstitutional  rightstoconfrontwitnessesandpresentadefense. (#(#  PresumptionofInnocence    Peoplev.Hernandez,no.S175615(rev.gr.September9,2009)    0  QuestionPresented: Didthetrialcourtabuseitsdiscretioninrequiringa   uniformed,armeddeputysherifftostandorsitimmediatelybehindthedefendant   duringhistestimony? (#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Respondentsopeningbriefdue(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:175_Cal.App_.4th940(no.A119501,filedJuly10,2009).  DivisionTwooftheFirstDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Theroutineprocedureof  placinganarmeddeputysheriffcloselybehindadefendantwhenheorshetakes  thestandtotestifyisrationalonlyupontheassumptionsthat(1)allcriminal  defendantsarepotentiallyviolentordisruptiveandpresentarisktocourtroom  security,(2)theriskisalwayssufficienttowarranttheroutineprocedure,and(3)  theroutineprocedureneverinfringesadefendantsdueprocessrighttoafairtrial  andthereforeneednotbemodifiedinordertoaccommodatethatright.Thefirst  twoassumptionsaresoirrationalastogobeyondthelegalpale,andthethirdis  outsidethelegalboundariesthatconstraindiscretion.Thetrialjudgesindulgence  oftheseassumptionsconstitutedaderelictionofherpreeminentjudicial  responsibilitytoinsurethattrialsareconductedasfairlyandimpartiallyasthe   circumstancespermit.[]Thefactthatthetrialcourtfeltitunnecessarytoeven ! inquirewhetherappellantposedanydangertocourtroomsecurity,theabsenceof " anyshowingappellantpresentedsuchadanger,andthelikelihoodthatthe # challengedprocedureprejudicedappellantinjurorseyes,compelustoconclude, $  aswedo,thatthecourtabuseditsdiscretion.TheCourtofAppealcontinued: % !  Theabuseofdiscretionwasexacerbatedbythetrialcourtspuzzlingrefusalto &!" giveacautionaryinstructionthatmighthavediminishedthepossibilitythatthe '"# jurywouldinferfromthedeploymentofthearmedguardthatappellantwas (#$ dangerousanduntrustworthy.)$%(#(# 0  Note:Briefinginthiscasehadoriginallybeendeferredpendingtheoutcomein +&' Peoplev.Stevens(2009)47Cal.4th625.AftertheSupremeCourtdecided  Stevens,theCourtdirectedrespondenttofileanopeningbriefinthismatter.  RespondentfiledamotiontodismissreviewinlightofStevens,buttheCourt  deniedtherequest.Stevensheld: thestationingofacourtroomdeputynexttoa  testifyingdefendantisnotaninherentlyprejudicialpracticethatmustbejustified  byashowingofmanifestneed.DefendantLorenzoStevensattemptstobringhis   caseundertheexactingmanifestneedstandardbyassertingthatthedeputys   presenceisakintoahumanshackle.AdividedCourtofAppealrejectedthis   argument,andwedosoaswell.Stevensofferedthefollowingguidelinesfor   futureconsideration: Trialcourtdecisionsregardingcourtroomsecuritycontinue   tobereviewedforabuseofdiscretion.Anyexerciseofdiscretionmustbe   informedbytheparticularcircumstancesofagivencase.Manysecurityand   decorumproceduresareroutineanddonotruntheriskofprejudice.However,   whenthecourtimposesameasurethatisinherentlyprejudicialtothedefendants   righttoassistinhisdefense,competentlypresenthisowntestimony,orenjoythe  presumptionofinnocence,thetrialcourtmusttakeparticularcare.Inorderto  employaninherentlyprejudicialprocedure,thecourtmustfindamanifestneed  sufficienttojustifytheriskofprejudice.Whenaninherentlyprejudicialprocedure  isemployed,areviewingcourtwillinquirewhether,basedontherecordbelow,  thetrialcourtreasonablybalancedtheneedforheightenedsecurityagainstthe  constitutionalrightsaffordedthedefendant.Onlyashowingofmanifestneedwill  supporttheuseofsuchmeasures.Inherentlyprejudicialpracticesincludevisible  shackling,stunbelts,orotheraffrontstohumandignity,ormethodsthatconveyto  thejurythatthedefendantmustbeseparatedfromthecommunityatlargebecause  heisespeciallydangerousorculpable,oristhecauseofsomeofficialconcernor  alarm.([Citation.])Althoughthestationingofasecurityofficeratthewitness  standduringanaccusedstestimonyisnotaninherentlyprejudicialpractice,the  trialcourtmustexerciseitsowndiscretioninorderingsuchaprocedureandmay  notsimplydefertoagenericpolicy. (#(#  VictimRestitution  " Peoplev.Anderson,no.S170778(rev.gr.April29,2009) $  0  QuestionPresented: Didthetrialcourterrinawardingrestitutiontothehospital &!" thattreatedthevictimofthedefendantshit-and-runoffense?'"#(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed)$%(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:170_Cal.App_.4th910(no.D050432,filedDecember31,2008). +&' DivisionOneoftheFourthDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Becauseadefendant  hasnorighttoprobation,thetrialcourtcanimposeprobationconditionsthatit  couldnototherwiseimpose,solongastheconditionsarenotinvalidunderthe  threeLentcriteria.Itisnotlimitedtodamagesspecificallycausedbythecrimeof  whichthedefendantwasconvicted.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:Inaffirmingtherestitutionorder,theCourtofAppealdistinguishedPeople   v._Slattery_Ԁ(2008)167_Cal.App_.4th1091,whichheldthatahospitalthattreateda   victiminjuredbyadefendantisitselfnota victimforpurposesofrestitution   underPenalCodesection1202.4,subdivision(f)._Slattery_,however,wasnota   caseinwhichthevictimrestitutionorderwasimposedasaconditionofprobation. (#(#  ParoleHearings    InreMolina,no.S172589(rev.gr.July29,2009)   0  QuestionPresented: WhenacourtdeterminestheBoardofParoleHearings  abuseditsdiscretionindenyingparoletoaninmate,mayitordertheBoardto  releasetheinmateonparoleormustitallowtheBoardtoredeterminetheinmates  parolesuitabilityandaffordtheGovernortheopportunitytoexercisehisorher  independentconstitutionalrighttoreviewparoledecisions?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2009WL1026596(no.B208260,filedApril16,2009).Thetrial  courtgrantedtheprisonershabeaspetitionseekingreversaloftheBoardsfinding  hewasunsuitableforparole.DivisionSixoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppeal  affirmedandremandedthemattertothetrialcourtwithdirectionsto remandto  theBoardwithinstructionstoreleaseMolinaonparoleinaccordancewith   conditionssetbytheBoard.!(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:TheSupremeCourtisnotreviewingtheBoardsparolesuitability # determination.Rather,reviewinthiscaseextendsonlytothepropercourseof $  actionfollowingreversalofaBoarddeterminationdenyingparole.% !(#(# Inre_Prather_,no.S172903(rev.gr.July29,2009) '"# 0  QuestionPresented: WhenacourtdeterminestheBoardofParoleHearings )$% abuseditsdiscretionindenyingparoletoaninmate,mayitordertheBoardtofind *%& theinmatesuitableforparoleunlessnewanddifferentevidenceoftheinmates +&' conductinprisonsubsequenttotheparolehearingatissuesupportsa  determinationthattheinmatecurrentlyposesanunreasonableriskofdangerto  societyifreleasedonparole?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2009WL1124976(no.B211805,filedApril28,2009).Division   FiveoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealgrantedtheprisonershabeaspetition   seekingtooverturntheBoardsparoleunsuitabilitydeterminationanddirectedthe   Board tofindMr._Prather_Ԁsuitableforparoleunless,within30daysofthefinality   ofthisdecision,theBoardholdsahearinganddeterminesthatnewanddifferent   evidenceofMr._Prather_sconductinprisonsubsequenttohis2007parolehearing   supportsadeterminationthathecurrentlyposesanunreasonableriskofdangerto   societyifreleasedonparole. (#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:LikeMolina,theSupremeCourtisnotreviewingtheBoardsparole  suitabilitydetermination.Rather,reviewinthiscaseextendsonlytotheproper  courseofactionfollowingreversalofaBoarddeterminationdenyingparole.(#(#  CivilCommitment   Peoplev.Lara,S155481(rev.gr.September25,2007)  0  QuestionsPresented:(1) Didtheuntimelyfilingofthepetitiontoextendan  insanitycommitmentdenydefendantdueprocess,whentherewasnogoodcause  forthedelayandthelatefilingallegedlylefthimwithinsufficienttimetoprepare  forthehearingonthepetition?(#(# 0  (2) DoesPenalCodesection1026.5authorizetheconfinementofadefendant   pendinga_recommitment_Ԁhearingwhentheprosecutionfilesa_recommitment_ ! petition,withoutgoodcause,solatethatthedefenseisunabletopreparefortrial " beforethecommitmentexpires?#(#(# 0  (3) DothefactsofthiscaseallowthiscourttoreachquestionNo.[2]?% !(#(# 0  (4) Intheabsenceofatimewaiver,doesatrialcourthavejurisdictiontocontinue '"# an_NGI_Ԁ_recommitment_Ԁhearingbeyondtheexpirationdateofthedefendants (#$ currentcommitment?)$%(#(# 0  (5) Ifthecourtlosesjurisdictiontoholdacommitteeoncethe_NGI_Ԁcommitment +&' expires,isthereanyotherauthorityforthecourttoorderacommitteeheldforthe  protectionofthecommitteeorothers?(#(# 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedonDecember9,2009(#(# 0  OpinionBelow:2007WL2040584(H028895,filedJuly17,2007).Accordingto   theSixthDistrictCourtofAppeal: Appellantscounselmadeanunchallenged   claimthatthelatefilingleftinadequatetimetopreparefora_predeprivation_   hearing.TheonuswasthenonthePeopletoshowthatthegovernmenthad   extraordinaryreasonsforthedelaythatwarranteddeprivationofappellantsliberty   followingexpirationofthecurrentcommitmentpendingapost-deprivation   hearing.Intheabsenceofanysuchshowing,appellantwasentitledtodismissalof   thepetition. (#(# 0  Note:Infindingadueprocessviolation,theCourtofAppealobserved: Wedo  notbelievethatapersonwhosepersonallibertyisplacedatriskbya  _recommitment_Ԁpetitionisrequiredtoforgoa_predeprivation_Ԁhearingtowhichheis  entitledandsufferfurtherdeprivationoflibertywithoutconstitutionallyadequate  proceduresinordertoretainothersafeguardsofproceduraldueprocess,namely  adequatetimetoprepareandafairhearing.(#(# 0  TheCourtofAppealsreasoninginLaraisconsistentwiththatofDivisionFiveof  theFirstDistrictCourtofAppealinPeoplev.Price,whichisalsopendingbefore  theCaliforniaSupremeCourt(S151207).Onsimilarfacts,Priceheld: thestatute  requiresthatadefendantbegivenadequatetimetopreparefortrialbeforethe  previouscommitmentexpires.Here,becausethepetitionwasfiledsolate,  appellantwasnotgivenadequatetimetopreparefortrialbeforehiscommitment  expired.Hethereforewasforcedtochoosebetweenproceedingtotrialwithout  adequatepreparation,orremainingincustodypastthedateonwhichhenormally   wouldbereleased.!(#(# 0  BothLaraandPriceconflictwiththedecisionofDivisionThreeoftheFirst # DistrictCourtofAppealinPeoplev.Mitchell(2005)127_Cal.App_.4th936,which $  held: Weconcludethatbecausedefensecounselwasaffordedatleastaslongto %!! preparethecase[fortrial]aswouldhavebeenavailablehadthepetitionbeen &"" timelyfiled([citation]),appellantsufferednoactualprejudicefromthedelay. '## Consequently,thetrialcourtsdecisionnottodismissrespondentspetition,andto ($$ proceedtotrial,wasnotanabuseofdiscretionoraviolationofdueprocess, )%% regardlessofwhetherrespondentwasabletoshowgoodcauseforitsfailuretofile *&& thepetitioninaccordancewiththedirectorytimeguidelines.Appellants +'' argumentstothiscourtsimplyignorethefactthetrialcourtgrantedampletimeto  thedefensetoprepareitscasefortrial,obviatingthekindofseriousprejudicethat  hasledappellatecourtstoreverseinothercasesofbelatedlyfiledpetitionsto  extendinvoluntarycommitment.(#(# Peoplev.Cobb,S159410(rev.gr.March12,2008)   0  QuestionsPresented:(1)Wasdefendantdenieddueprocessandafairtrialby   delayintheprosecutionofapetitionforcontinuedinvoluntarytreatmentand   continueddetentionuntil23daysafterhisreleasedate? (#(# 0  (2) Diddefendantspre-parolecertificationasamentallydisorderedoffender,   whichrequiredhimtoaccepttreatmentasaconditionofparole,sufficetojustify   hiscontinueddetentionpendingtrialonapetitionforcontinuedinvoluntary   treatment?(#(# 0  (3) DoesPenalCodesection2972authorizethecontinuedconfinementofa  personpreviouslyfoundtobeamentallydisorderedoffenderwhenthetrialonthe  continuationpetitionhasnotcommencedbeforethepersonwasotherwisetohave  beenreleased,thepersonhasnotwaivedtime,andgoodcauseforthedelayhas  notbeenshown?(#(# 0  (4) DothefactsinthiscaseallowthiscourttoreachquestionNo.[3]?(#(# 0  (5) Intheabsenceofatimewaiverorgoodcauseforacontinuance,doesatrial  courthavejurisdictiontocontinueanMDOcontinuationhearingbeyondthe  expirationdateofthedefendant'scurrentcommitment?(#(# 0  (6)IfthecourtlosesjurisdictiontoholdacommitteeoncetheMDOcommitment   expires,isthereanyotherauthorityforthecourttoorderacommitteeheldforthe ! protectionofthecommitteeorothers?"(#(# 0  Status:ArguedandsubmittedonDecember9,2009$ (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:157_Cal.App_.4th393(E040848,filedNovember28,2007).&""(#(# 0  Note:CobbpresentsmanyofthesameissuesthatarebeforetheCourtinLaraand ($$ Price.LaraandCobbwerearguedonthesameday,anditislikelytheCourtwill )%% decidethembothonthesamedayaswell.ButCobbalsowillrequiretheCourtto *&& addresstheCourtofAppealsratheruniquecharacterizationofthenatureofan +'' extendedcommitmenttrial.InCobb,theCourtofAppealconcludedthattheprior  MDOfindingthatprecedesasubsequentextendedcommitmenttrialessentially  functionsasaprobablecausedeterminationthatempowersthetrialcourttohold  thedefendantpasttheexpirationofhiscommitmentpendingtheoutcomeofthe  extendedcommitmenthearing.AccordingtotheCourtofAppealinCobb: This  noticeandopportunitytobeheardisalsoconstitutionallysufficienttoallowthe   defendanttobeconfined-evenafterhisorherreleasedate-untiltheendoftrial.   Essentially,therehasalreadybeenadeterminationthatthedefendantisanMDO;   atthetrial,theprosecutionsimplymustprovethatthedefendantisstillanMDO.   Inthisregard,theCourtofAppealsdecisioninCobbconflictswithZacharyv.   SuperiorCourt(1997)57Cal.App.4th1026,whichheld: Nothinginthe_MDPA_   suggeststhat,despitethecommittedpersonsreceiptofmentalhealthtreatmentfor   ayear,apresumptionofcontinueddangerousnessiseffectedbythedistrict   attorneysmerefilingofapetitionforcommitmentunderthe_MDPA_.Tothe   contrary,the_MDPA_ԀrequiresthePeopletoprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthat  thecommittedpersoncontinuestoposeasubstantialdangerofphysicalharmto  others.(2972,subd.(a).)(#(# Peoplev.Castillo,no.S171163(rev.gr.May13,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: DidtheCourtofAppealerrbyincreasingthetermof  defendantscommitmentundertheSexuallyViolentPredatorActfromtwoyears  toanindeterminatetermpursuanttothe2006amendmentstoWelfareand  InstitutionsCodesection6604,whentheLosAngelesCountyDistrictAttorney  hadstipulatedthatonlythetwo-yearcommitmenttermwouldbesought?(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed(#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:170Cal.App.4th1156(no.B202289,filedJanuary30,2009).   DivisionFiveoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld: Weagreewiththe ! AttorneyGeneralscontentionthatthetrialcourtsimpositionofatwo-year " commitmentonCastillowasunauthorizedbecausethelawineffectatthetimeof # trialrequiredcommitmentforanindeterminateterm.$ (#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:Thiscasepresentsanovelquestionconcerningtheinteractionbetweenan &"" unauthorizedsentence(or,inthiscase,commitment)andprinciplesofestoppel.In '## rejectingappellantsargumentthattheAttorneyGeneralwas_estopped_Ԁfrom ($$ seekingalongercommitmentonappealthantheDistrictAttorneysoughtinthe )%% trialcourt,theCourtofAppealmaintained: estoppeldoesnotapplywhen *&& enforcementofthestipulationwouldbecontrarytotheLegislaturesplain +'' directive,wouldentailaseriousrisktopublicsafety,andwherethepartyseeking  estoppeldidnotdetrimentallyrelyonthepositionadvancedbythepublicentity  below.(#(# Moorev.SuperiorCourt,no.S174633(rev.gr.September17,2009)  0  QuestionPresented: CanthetrialinacommitmentproceedingundertheSexually   ViolentPredatorActbeheldwhilethedefendantisincompetent? (#(# 0  Status:Fullybriefed (#(# 0   (#(# 0  OpinionBelow:174Cal.App.4th856(no.B198550,filedJune4,2009).Division   ThreeoftheSecondDistrictCourtofAppealheld, asamatterofconstitutional   dueprocess,thatadefendantcannotbesubjectedtotrialasanallegedsexually   violentpredatorwhilementallyincompetent.Ourdecisionisbasedonthe  followingfactors:(1)thelibertyinterestatstakeinan_SVPA_Ԁproceedingis  significant;(2)proceedingwithan_SVPA_Ԁtrialagainstanincompetentdefendant  posesanunacceptableriskofanerroneousdeprivationofliberty;(3)the  governmentalinterestinprotectingitscitizensandtreatingsexuallyviolent  predatorsisnotsignificantlyburdenedbyprovidingforacompetency  determinationinthe_SVPA_Ԁcontext;and(4)thedefendantsdignitaryinterestin  presentinghissideofthestoryisprotectedbyensuringthedefendantiscompetent  tostandtrial.(#(# 0   (#(# 0  Note:TheCaliforniaSupremeCourtrecentlyreiteratedthefactorstobe  consideredwhendecidingwhatprocessdefendantsaredueatSVPcivil  commitmenttrials.(Peoplev.Allen(2008)44Cal.4th843[holdingtherightofa  criminaldefendanttotestifyovertheobjectionofcounseldoesnotextendtoan  individualwhoisthesubjectofacivilcommitmentproceedingunderthe_SVPA_].)   TheCourtofAppealappliedtheAllenfactors,asnotedabove,andthiscasewill ! callupontheSupremeCourttoapplythesefactorsoncemore.Lastly,theCourtof " AppealacknowledgedthatitsholdingwasatoddswithPeoplev._Angeletakis_ # (1992)5Cal.App.4th963,whichhelddueprocessdoesnotincludetherighttobe $  mentallycompetentduringaninsanitycommitmentextensionhearingunderPenal %!! Codesection1026.5.