Trial court abused its discretion in removing a juror from the jury based on the juror’s inability to perform his or her duty. The trial court found that the juror considered information outside of the evidence that was admitted into trial, applied different and incorrect standards of the burden of proof, failed to follow the law and instructions as given, and considered punishment. The Court of Appeal found the trial court’s reasoning for discharging the juror was not manifestly supported by the evidence.
**Between March and November 2024, there were many important unpublished panel victories in the First District. Unfortunately, we were not able to update our First District victories page during that time. Even though the victories are not on the website, we appreciate all of the hard work done by the panel and continued dedication to our clients.**
A152729
- March 28, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: John Schuck
- Categories: Criminal, Prosecutorial, Juror, and Judicial Misconduct
A152479
- March 26, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Patrick McKenna
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
The terms “pornography” and “sexually explicit” images or material, as used in two of the minor’s probation conditions, are unconstitutionally vague and do not provide fair warning about the prohibited conduct, nor permit the juvenile court to intelligently determine if any of the conditions has been violated. The Court of Appeal modified the conditions to reference “materials depicting obscene matter as described in Penal Code section 311, subdivisions (a) and (b).”
A154412
- March 25, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Nahaniel Miller
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Probation, Parole, PRCS, and Mandatory Supervision
Two of the minor’s probation conditions included words or phrases that made the conditions unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Specifically, the Court held that the term “sexually arousing materials” should be modified to “materials that are primarily intended to cause sexual arousal.” The Court further held that the prohibition of possession of material depicting nudity or containing “sexually explicit language” must be stricken because it is far broader than necessary or permissible.
A151556
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Juliana Drous
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Appellant was convicted of five counts of making criminal threats with the use of a deadly weapon. The Court of Appeal found that her sentence for three of the criminal threats counts should have been stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, which precludes multiple punishments for an indivisible course of conduct. While the court noted that section 654 does not apply to violent crimes against multiple victims, the jury found not true the deadly weapon enhancement in connection with the burglary, rendering that conviction nonviolent.
A152332
- March 21, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Carol Chodroff
- Categories: Criminal, Discovery
The in camera Pitchess hearing, which the trial court conducted, did not conform with prescribed procedures. From the limited transcript of the in camera proceedings, the Court of Appeal could not tell whether the custodian of records brought all potentially responsive documents, and whether the juvenile court reviewed the potentially responsive documents or merely a summary. For that reason, the Court conditionally reversed the judgment of conviction.
A147907
- March 19, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Geoff Jones
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
In a case where the defendant was convicted of the forcible rape and digital penetration of his 17-year-old niece, the trial court abused its discretion in failing to conduct a hearing under section 782 and in excluding evidence that the defendant threatened to disclose his niece was having an affair with the boyfriend of her mother, giving his niece a strong motive to falsely accuse him of rape. The Court therefore reversed the convictions.
A152810
- March 19, 2019
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Victor Blumenkrantz
- Categories: Criminal, Evidentiary
The trial court erred in finding a defense expert was unqualified to testify regarding the psychological testing of appellant for “susceptibility to false confession.” The proposed expert was a practicing psychologist whose testimony, the A.G. argued, did not demonstrate an expertise in police interrogation techniques. The Court of Appeal determined that there is no requirement that a witness be a “researcher or nationally recognized authority” to testify as an expert on a given subject. Further, the court found that neither the trial court nor respondent explained how an ability to interpret the results of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales test depends on an expertise in police interrogation tactics. And, in any event, the testimony of the witness showed he did have some knowledge of interrogation techniques.
A150771
- March 19, 2019
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Richard Such
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
The trial court erred by imposing the $30 criminal conviction and $40 court operations assessments as probation conditions. The assessments should not have be imposed as probation conditions because they were collateral to the defendant’s possession offense and not directed towards his rehabilitation.
A151408
- March 18, 2019
- Division: Four
- Attorney: James Donnelly-Saalfield
- Categories: Criminal, General, Sentencing
Court of Appeal reduced a felony conviction for identify theft to a misdemeanor finding that, under the provisions of Proposition 47, identity theft must be treated as a misdemeanor – either as shoplifting under section 459.5 or as petty theft under section 490.2 – if the value of the personal identifying information at issue does not exceed $950.
A148197
- March 13, 2019
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Peter Goldscheider
- Categories: Competency, Criminal
Trial court erred in failing to reinstate competency proceedings because defense counsel had presented substantial evidence that he was experiencing new and worsened symptoms constituting a substantial change of circumstances in his mental condition. Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of conviction.