Malcolm Millar Lucas

The case involved Keith Sanford Hitchings, who was convicted in Humboldt County Superior Court of two murders with a multiple-murder special circumstance and sentenced to death. Hitchings filed a habeas corpus petition alleging juror misconduct by Cathy Nordstrom, including concealing prior knowledge of the case during voir dire, prejudging his guilt, and improperly discussing the case with coworkers at a local bank while serving as a juror. The court issued an order to show cause, appointed a referee to hold an evidentiary hearing on three specific questions about the juror's knowledge, bias, and discussions, and ultimately granted the writ after reviewing the referee's findings and evidence of Nordstrom's bias and improper communications. The decision rested on the conclusion that the juror's actions violated the duty to remain impartial and not discuss the case, requiring vacation of the convictions under the totality of circumstances showing actual bias. The opinion addressed related legal standards from U.S. Supreme Court precedents on juror dishonesty and prejudice but focused on the facts of this petition.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Paul Douglas Fields, who was charged with multiple counts including gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated after causing a fatal car accident while driving under the influence. In the first trial, the jury convicted Fields on the lesser included offense of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated but deadlocked on the greater offense, leading to a mistrial on that count; he was later retried and convicted on the greater offense. The California Supreme Court held that Penal Code section 1023, as interpreted in People v. Greer, barred the retrial on the greater offense once the defendant stood convicted of the lesser included offense, even though the jury had been deadlocked. The court reasoned that the implied acquittal doctrine did not apply due to the explicit deadlock, but the statutory prohibition on subsequent prosecution for the greater offense after conviction on the lesser still controlled, resulting in affirmation of the Court of Appeal's reversal of the greater offense conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a school district could use collective bargaining to grant probationary teachers more procedural protections—such as advance notice of reasons and an appeal opportunity—before deciding not to reelect them, than those specified in Education Code section 44929.21(b). The Round Valley Teachers Association grieved a district's nonrenewal of a probationary teacher that bypassed the bargained procedures, leading an arbitrator to order compliance and reconsideration. The district petitioned to vacate the award, arguing the statute preempted the agreement. The court held that section 44929.21(b) exclusively governs reelection procedures and permits nonrenewal without cause or hearing, while Government Code section 3540 et seq. bars bargaining on matters the Education Code reserves to districts; thus the arbitrator exceeded his powers by enforcing conflicting contract terms, and the award was vacated.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, a defendant was charged in municipal court with misdemeanor contempt for violating a preliminary injunction issued by the superior court that restricted gang members' activities in a Los Angeles area. The municipal court overruled the defendant's demurrer challenging the injunction's facial constitutionality, and the appellate department of the superior court affirmed on jurisdictional grounds. The Court of Appeal upheld these rulings, but the California Supreme Court reversed, concluding that while a direct attack to dissolve the injunction could not be brought in municipal court, the defendant was entitled to defend against the contempt charges by asserting the injunction's unconstitutionality and to obtain appellate review of any contempt judgment on those grounds. The court's reasoning rested on settled California law that there can be no contempt of a void injunctive order and that constitutional challenges to such orders may be raised in contempt proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In re Avena was a habeas corpus proceeding brought by Carlos Jaime Avena, who had been convicted in 1980 of two first-degree murders and other offenses and sentenced to death. After the California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause on his petition and appointed a referee to resolve disputed factual issues, primarily concerning claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the referee submitted findings adverse to Avena on those issues. The court concluded that the referee's findings were supported by the evidence, rejected the petitioner's exceptions, discharged the order to show cause, and denied the writ of habeas corpus. The decision turned on the absence of any factual or legal basis for relief from the convictions or death sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Larry Douglas Lucas's conviction for two counts of first-degree murder and burglary of an elderly couple who lived next door, along with special circumstance findings of multiple murder and burglary-murder that resulted in a death sentence. The California Supreme Court considered the automatic appeal from the judgment imposing the death penalty. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, concluding that physical evidence including bloodstains consistent with the defendant's and victims' blood, fingerprints on items from the victims' home, and the defendant's own testimony about events on the night of the crimes sufficiently supported the jury's findings, and that the prosecutor's penalty phase arguments did not improperly undermine the reliability of the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Teddy Brian Sanchez was charged with the first-degree murders of Juan Bocanegra, Juanita Bocanegra, and Woodrow Wilson Tatman, along with related robbery counts and special circumstance allegations including multiple murder and robbery-murder. After waiving a jury trial on guilt and submitting the matter on preliminary hearing transcripts, the trial court convicted him of the murders and one robbery, found the multiple-murder special circumstance true as to two victims, and a separate jury imposed a death sentence at the penalty phase. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, special circumstances, and death judgment in full, rejecting claims of evidentiary error, prosecutorial misconduct, and other procedural issues on the grounds that any irregularities were either harmless or did not affect the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the Fresno County Superior Court could, under Government Code section 69898(d), adopt a local rule transferring the superior court clerk duties from the elected county clerk to a court executive officer before the clerk's four-year term expired. The California Supreme Court held that such a transfer may take effect immediately upon adoption of the rule, even mid-term. The court reasoned that the Legislature possesses authority to reallocate these court-related functions to promote judicial efficiency, as previously affirmed in Zumwalt v. Superior Court, and that doing so does not unconstitutionally interfere with the electorate's choice or the clerk's elected office because the underlying constitutional provisions allow the Legislature to prescribe and modify such duties.

electionsprocedure

The case concerned whether the one-year conditions precedent in former Insurance Code section 11580.2(i) for uninsured motorist claims—such as filing suit or demanding arbitration—also applied to underinsured motorist coverage. The court held that section 11580.2(i) does not govern underinsured motorist claims. It reasoned that subdivision (p), which specifically addresses underinsured coverage, controls in the event of conflict and requires exhaustion of the tortfeasor's liability limits by settlement or judgment before coverage applies, making the earlier accrual deadline incompatible. The policy language mirroring subdivision (i) was therefore inapplicable, and the insurer's summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds was reversed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Teofilo Medina Jr.'s automatic appeal from a Riverside County judgment imposing the death penalty after his conviction for first-degree murder, robbery, burglary, and personal firearm use, with special circumstance findings of robbery-murder and burglary-murder, all arising from a 1984 gas station crime spree. A jury had previously found the defendant competent to stand trial, and at the guilt phase the prosecution linked him to the murder through ballistics, witness testimony, and other evidence from related uncharged offenses. The California Supreme Court reviewed claims regarding competency proceedings, evidentiary issues, jury instructions, and the trial court's sentencing statement, and affirmed the judgment in full, finding no reversible error or defect warranting reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Proposition 73's campaign contribution limits (Gov. Code §§ 85301-85304), which used a fiscal-year measure that a federal district court and Ninth Circuit had held unconstitutional under the First Amendment, leading to an injunction against enforcement. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate from the California Supreme Court to compel the Fair Political Practices Commission to enforce the provisions, raising the question of whether the court could judicially reform the statutes by substituting per-election limits to avoid the constitutional defect. The court held that it lacked authority to reform sections 85301(a), 85302, 85303(a) and (b), or the inter-candidate transfer ban in section 85304, because any such changes would not closely effectuate the electorate's clearly articulated policy judgments and because the voters would not have preferred the reformed version over invalidation of the provisions. The decision rested on state-law principles governing judicial reformation of statutes to preserve constitutionality while respecting separation of powers and voter intent.

electionsfree speech

The case concerned whether a trial court must, on its own initiative, define the phrase "reckless indifference to human life" when instructing a jury on a felony-murder special-circumstance allegation against a defendant who was not the actual killer. Defendant Estrada and a codefendant were convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and burglary after a home invasion that resulted in the victim's death; the jury found the special circumstances true even though evidence showed Estrada was not the killer. The California Supreme Court held that no sua sponte instruction was required. The court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of the statutory phrase already conveys the mental state described in section 190.2(d) and in Tison v. Arizona, and that the phrase is not unconstitutionally vague. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether an accounting firm could recover tort damages from an oil company that allegedly denied in bad faith the existence of a contract for litigation support services, after the company refused to pay the firm's bill. The California Supreme Court granted review to reconsider its earlier decision in Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co., which had recognized a tort cause of action for bad faith denial of a contract's existence. The court overruled Seaman's, holding that no such tort remedy is available in ordinary contract cases. Its core reasoning was that the Seaman's rule had proven confusing and ambiguous, was analytically flawed, had been widely criticized by scholars and other courts, and improperly expanded tort liability into the contract realm without sufficient justification.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy required Truck Insurance Exchange to defend its insureds against a lawsuit by a former executive alleging multiple business-related claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from corporate stock sales, board changes, and demotion at Marmac, Inc. The California Supreme Court held that the insurer had no duty to defend because the policy covered only bodily injury or property damage caused by occurrences, and allegations of incidental emotional distress damages arising from noncovered economic or business torts fell outside the policy's scope with no potential for coverage. The court reasoned that without any duty to defend or indemnify, the insurer could not be liable for bad faith claims under Insurance Code section 790.03 or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment in favor of the insurer.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a prison inmate who petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to reinstate his criminal appeal, which the Court of Appeal had dismissed under California Rules of Court, rule 17(a), for failure to file an opening brief. The petitioner had been convicted of multiple serious offenses including murder and attempted murder, and his retained counsel had accepted payment but never filed a substitution of attorney or pursued the appeal, while notices were sent directly to the petitioner in prison. The California Supreme Court reversed the denial of the petition, holding that the equities favored the petitioner and entitled him to reinstatement of the appeal. The core reasoning focused on the petitioner's reasonable reliance on his attorneys despite their inaction, complications with record and notice handling by the courts and appellate projects, and the absence of personal fault by the petitioner in the dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the murder and conspiracy convictions of brothers Lance Christopher Badgett and John Badgett for the killing of Michael Palmer, with the primary evidence coming from the testimony of witness Henrietta Jasik under a grant of immunity. The Court of Appeal had reversed the convictions, finding that the trial court erred by admitting Jasik's testimony on grounds that it was coerced. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that the defendants failed to demonstrate a due process violation from the admission of the testimony after reviewing the full record, including the circumstances of Jasik's cooperation with police and the immunity discussions. The court also upheld the trial court's ruling that defendant Chris Badgett could not assert marital privilege over certain communications because he had not entered into a valid marriage with the witness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Douglas Palaschak, who was convicted of possessing LSD under Health and Safety Code section 11377 after ingesting the drug shortly before police arrived at his office. The Court of Appeal had reversed the conviction, reasoning that the defendant no longer had dominion and control over the substance once it was ingested. The California Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the conviction, holding that the drug possession statutes do not require proof of possession at the exact time of arrest. Instead, the court explained that direct or circumstantial evidence of prior possession within the statute of limitations is sufficient to support a conviction, even if the defendant consumed the drugs before being taken into custody.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiffs suing their accounting firm for negligence in preparing tax returns for a subsidiary that qualified as a domestic international sales corporation (DISC), which resulted in the loss of tax benefits due to missing documentation. The central issue was determining when the two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 339, subdivision 1, begins to run for accountant malpractice—specifically, whether it starts upon receipt of a preliminary IRS audit report or upon the actual assessment of tax deficiencies. The California Supreme Court held that the limitations period commences when the IRS assesses the tax deficiency, as that is when actual injury occurs, reversing the Court of Appeal's decision that it began earlier with the preliminary report. The court reasoned that preliminary audit findings are merely proposed and subject to further review and negotiation before final assessment.

proceduretaxestorts & liability

The case involved a defendant convicted of second-degree murder who filed a habeas corpus petition in the Court of Appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and present an intoxication defense. The California Supreme Court granted review to clarify procedural rules governing the People's return to an order to show cause in habeas proceedings, specifically addressing whether the return must contain sufficient factual allegations to identify disputed issues. The court decided to modify prior pleading requirements so that the return should stand alone with critical facts, and remanded the matter for appointment of a referee and an evidentiary hearing. The core reasoning was that expanded use of habeas relief requires clearer procedures to help courts efficiently determine which material facts are in dispute, even though the ultimate burden of proof remains on the petitioner.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the convictions of William Gonzales Harris for multiple crimes, including first degree murder, kidnapping for robbery, and robbery, arising from the kidnapping and killing of a car owner during a burglary spree in 1990. The central issue on appeal was whether an erroneous jury instruction on the "immediate presence" element of robbery—issued before the court's decision in People v. Hayes—prejudiced the jury's verdict on the robbery-related charges. The California Supreme Court held that the instructional error was harmless because the evidence undisputedly established the taking occurred in the victim's immediate presence. The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeal's decision to overturn the robbery, kidnapping for robbery, and first degree murder convictions while affirming the judgment in all other respects.

criminal lawprocedure