FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Cal Supreme

People v. Stevens

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure) Defendant's conviction for assault with intent to commit rape and related crimes is affirmed where the stationing of a courtroom deputy next to a testifying defendant is not an inherently prejudicial practice that must be justified by a showing of manifest need.

Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc.

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Class Actions, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law) In a putative class action against Citigroup by its former employees challenging the company's forfeiture provision of a voluntary employee incentive compensation plan (Plan) upon termination in violation of Labor Code section 201 and 202, the judgment of the court of appeals granting Citigroup's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as the company Plan's forfeiture provision does not run afoul of sections 201 or 202 because no earned wages remain unpaid upon termination for cause or resignation.

Johnson v. Greenelsh

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Probate, Trusts & Estates) In proceedings involving an arbitration petition by one co-trustee of a family trust and plaintiff-co-trustee's petition to enforce a no contest clause, appellate court's judgment against defendant-co-trustee is reversed as a challenge to a surviving spouse's mental capacity to transfer trust assets and appoint a successor trustee did not violate the no contest clause in a family trust. A proceeding contesting a settlor's mental competence to exercise rights under a trust does not amount to an attack on the trust itself, unless it seeks to thwart the estate plan established by the trust.

People v. Brookfield

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Court of appeals' judgment upholding a life sentence but reversing an enhanced punishment imposed on a defendant convicted of a gang-related crime in the commission of which he did not personally discharge a firearm (a companion of his did), is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in sentencing defendant to both the life term under section 186.22(b)(4) and the 10-year sentence enhancement under subdivisions (b) and (e)(1) of section 12022.53; 2) the court of appeals was correct in ordering the 10-year sentence enhancement stricken, but it was incorrect in its reasoning that the defendant had not committed a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life.

People v. Jones

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Court of appeals' application of a 20-year sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53(c) to a defendant convicted of a gang-related crime is affirmed where, because the felony of shooting at an inhabited dwelling was punishable by a life term under section 186.22(b)(4), and it was committed to benefit a criminal street gang, defendant committed a felony punishable by . . . imprisonment in the state prison for life within the meaning of subdivision (a)(17) of section 12022.53.

21st Centruy Ins. Co. v. Quintana

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., ) In a case against an automobile insurance company, the Court of Appeal's judgment is affirmed where, although the made-whole rule applies in the med-pay insurance context, and the insured must be made whole as to all damages proximately caused by the injury, liability for attorney fees is not included under the made-whole rule. Instead, a pro rata apportionment rule for attorney fees better allocates responsibility between the insured and the insurer.

People v. Moye

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure) In a second degree murder case, Court of Appeal's judgment reversing defendant's murder conviction based on its determination that the trial court's jury instructional error prejudicial, is reversed and remanded where the evidentiary record supports the trial court's determination that there was insubstantial evidence to warrant instruction on a sudden quarrel/heat of passion theory of voluntary manslaughter.

People v. Rodriguez

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Court of appeal's ruling reversing defendant's sentence for assault with a firearm, on the ground that section 654 prohibits against multiple punishment for the same act, is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court for resentencing under section 1170.1(f) which applies when two or more enhancements may be imposed for using a firearm in the commission of a single offense, only the greatest of those enhancements shall be imposed for that offense.

In re Julian R.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Juvenile Law, Sentencing) Juvenile defendant's sentence is affirmed where: 1) a statement of maximum period of confinement need only be written and not orally pronounced in order to comply with statute; and 2) on a silent record, a court is presumed to have complied with its statutory duty to consider imposition of a confinement period shorter than the adult maximum that might be justified by the facts and circumstances at issue.

Christoff v. Nestle USA

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Commercial Law, Contracts, Food & Beverages, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property) In an action brought by a professional model for the misappropriation of his likeness by defendant-Nestle, a court of appeal ruling reversing a trial court jury award of over $15 million is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the trial court erroneously ruled that the single-publication rule does not apply to claims for appropriation of likeness; but 2) the court of appeals erred to the extent that it held that, for purposes of the statute of limitations, plaintiff's cause of action necessarily accrued when Nestle first "published" the label pursuant to the rule of Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (2003).

People v. Martinez

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Sentencing) Conviction for first degree murder and other crimes and sentence to death is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in failing to conduct a Marsden inquiry regarding substitute counsel; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecutor's challenges for cause against two prospective jurors; 3) the court did not err in its jury instructions concerning consideration of the testimony of a willfully untruthful witness, and the inferring of consciousness of guilt from defendant's attempt to persuade a witness to provide false evidence or from evidence of his flight from the crime scene; 4) defendant is not entitled to inspect the undisclosed portion of the witness's juvenile file as it is not material to the defense; and 5) California's death penalty statute does not violate the state or federal constitutions.

Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Bankruptcy Law, Consumer Protection Law, Debt Collection, Remedies) In a bankruptcy action decided on request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court of California concludes that the statutory damages prescribed in Civil Code sec. 1719 are exclusive in the sense that a debt collector who recovers a service charge on a dishonored check pursuant to Civil Code sec. 1719 may not also recover prejudgment interest on damages under Civil Code sec. 3287.

People v. McWhorter

Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing) Conviction for first degree murder and sentence to death is modified and affirmed where: 1) the first part of defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily given and properly ruled admissible; 2) the court did not err when it found the second taped statement, including his recantation, fully admissible on the basis that it was sufficiently attenuated from the portion of his initial statement that was found involuntary; 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding both of defendant's expert's testimonies; 4) the court did not err in excluding defendant's third party culpability evidence; 5) defendant's claim of judicial misconduct fails; 6) defendant's claim that the court erred in refusing to inform defendant's wife of the spousal privilege against testifying is without merit; 6) defendant's claim that the court failed to fulfill its duty to forbid physical restraints unless their use was manifestly necessary is without merit; 7) the court did not err in giving the jury an instruction on flight after crime; 8) the court erred in permitting the jury to find true two multiple-murder special circumstances, but the error did not prejudice his penalty determination; 9) California's death penalty statute does not violate the state or federal constitution; and 10) the trial court erred in imposing and then staying a parole revocation restitution fine.

Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.

Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Constitutional Law, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law) In a tort action alleging intrusion into a protected place, interest, or matter, and violations of the right to privacy, court of appeals judgment reversing summary judgment for defendants is reversed where plaintiffs did not establish that defendants' challenged conduct was highly offensive and constituted an egregious violation of prevailing social norms, as activation of a surveillance system was narrowly tailored in place, time, and scope and was prompted by legitimate business concerns, and plaintiffs were not at risk of being monitored or recorded during regular work hours and were never actually caught on camera or videotape.

Delgado v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California

Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal., Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In a dispute involving insurance liability coverage, court of appeals judgment is reversed where defendant had no duty to defend its insured party in the lawsuit brought against him by defendant as an insured party's unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense does not turn the resulting purposeful and intentional act of assault and battery into an "accident" within the policy's coverage clause.