William P. Clark jr

The case involved defendant Robert Alton Harris's appeal from convictions for the first-degree murders, kidnappings, and robberies of two teenage boys, as well as related firearm offenses, following a bank robbery plot in San Diego County; the jury found multiple special circumstances including multiple murders and murders committed during felonies, leading to a death sentence. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The court's reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence from the guilt phase establishing premeditated killings, proper findings on special circumstances under Penal Code section 190.2, and rejection of claims regarding pretrial publicity and venue change based on community impact and jury selection processes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Tony Chun-Ho Szeto's convictions for being an accessory to felony murder by helping dispose of weapons used in the 1977 Golden Dragon restaurant shootings in San Francisco and for illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The defendant appealed, arguing that the testimony of accomplice Chester Yu was not adequately corroborated under Penal Code section 1111. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that independent evidence such as the defendant's gang associations, presence at related events, and other connections sufficiently tended to link him to the crimes without relying on the accomplice's statements. The court applied settled standards requiring only that corroboration reasonably connect the defendant to the offenses, which the jury could find here.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff arrested in Nevada by agents of defendant nightclubs on a disturbing the peace charge who later sued the defendants in California for tort claims including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. In exchange for the local prosecutor's recommendation to dismiss the charge, the plaintiff signed a written release waiving all civil claims against the defendants and related parties; the charge was then dismissed. After a separate jury trial on the defendants' affirmative defense, the trial court upheld the release as valid and entered judgment for the defendants. The California Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the release was not contrary to public policy because the plaintiff's consent was voluntary, the prosecutor acted on a good-faith belief in probable cause, and the agreement served legitimate interests without improper coercion.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the sale of shares in Execudex San Jose, Inc., an executive placement business, where buyer Dr. Harry Ehrmantraut paid $25,000 cash and a $60,000 promissory note to seller Theo Fox. Fox sued to collect on the note after Ehrmantraut defaulted, and Ehrmantraut cross-complained alleging misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and seeking rescission based on inaccurate financial information about the parent licensor company and regulatory issues. The trial court entered judgment for Fox on both the complaint and cross-complaint, finding no false representations or concealment of material facts. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Ehrmantraut failed to prove any actionable misrepresentations regarding the parent company's accounts receivable or capital accounts and that the stock sale qualified for an exemption under the California Franchise Investment Law as a sale by a franchisee for its own account without the franchisor receiving proceeds. The court also rejected claims that the transaction violated securities qualification requirements.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a challenge by the prosecution to a trial court's order suppressing evidence in a murder prosecution, on the ground that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal arrest lacking probable cause. The California Supreme Court granted the People's petition for a writ of mandate, holding that the arrest was lawful. The officer responded to a report of a gunshot victim and found the defendant alone near the body, with knowledge of the defendant's prior motive to harm the victim, history of violence, and visible bloodstains on the defendant's clothing. These facts, the court reasoned, would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the defendant had committed the murder, satisfying the standard for probable cause.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Raymond Mack's convictions for first degree murder, six counts of first degree robbery, and one count of first degree burglary, along with a finding of great bodily injury, based in part on stolen property observed in a garage during a police search. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after staying sentences on the non-murder counts. The core issue was the legality of an officer's warrantless entry into the garage to search for additional suspects following an informant's tip, shouts of alarm, and sounds of movement inside, during which stolen items were seen in plain view. The court held the entry reasonable under the precedent of People v. Block, as the officer could point to specific facts supporting a belief that suspects might be hiding, allowing seizure of the visible evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs seeking a writ of mandate to compel the Regents of the University of California to set minimum wages for certain hourly and per diem employees at or above prevailing local rates under Education Code section 92611. The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action, holding that the statute conflicted with article IX, section 9 of the California Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, explaining that the constitutional provision grants the Regents broad autonomy in governing the university, limiting legislative authority to appropriations, general police power regulations applicable to private parties, or matters of statewide concern outside internal university operations. Salary determinations fall within the Regents' exclusive domain and cannot be dictated by the prevailing wage statute.

labor & employment

The case concerned 1976 California legislation that attempted to cap cost-of-living adjustments to judicial salaries at 5 percent after a freeze period, despite higher increases in the consumer price index. Judges in office and judicial pensioners sued the state controller, arguing the law unconstitutionally impaired their vested rights to full salary adjustments. The California Supreme Court held that the prior law created a binding contractual obligation for compensation that could not be unilaterally reduced, violating both state and federal contract clauses as well as a state constitutional provision against reducing judicial salaries. The court applied the rule of necessity to adjudicate the matter despite all judges having a financial interest in the outcome.

labor & employment

The case concerns a challenge by environmental organizations, residents, and Sacramento County to the East Bay Municipal Utility District's contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to divert up to 150,000 acre-feet of water annually from the American River via the Folsom-South Canal, which would reduce flows in the lower American River used for recreation, fish, and wildlife. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers and dismissed the action, but the California Supreme Court reverses the dismissal. On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding federal preemption, the court holds that the suit may proceed because California's constitutional and statutory reasonable-use doctrine (Cal. Const., art. X, § 2 and Water Code sections 100 and 101) limits all water rights and applies to the project, with the State Water Resources Control Board retaining authority to impose conditions protecting public uses.

environmentfederal powerproperty

This case concerned a minor wardship proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in which a juvenile court referee found the petitioner not guilty of the charged misconduct, after which a judge ordered a de novo rehearing before a judge pursuant to former sections 559 and 560. The petitioner sought to bar the rehearing on double jeopardy grounds, relying on Breed v. Jones. Following remand from the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration in light of Swisher v. Brady, the California Supreme Court held that the state's procedures differed materially from Maryland's because they abandoned the referee's findings and commenced an independent new proceeding rather than conducting a review of the record. The court therefore concluded that the de novo rehearing would expose the minor to a second jeopardy and ordered issuance of the writ restraining the rehearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Re Dexter concerned the Community Release Board's application of Penal Code section 1170.2 to retroactively set a term under the Determinate Sentencing Law for a prisoner originally sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law for first-degree robbery. The CRB added a one-year weapons enhancement based on probation report and sentencing transcript findings that the petitioner or an accomplice was armed with a firearm, despite a plea bargain that had struck the section 12022.5 allegation. The superior court ordered recomputation without the enhancement, but the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the enhancement was justified by matters found true and imposed at the original sentencing and that reliance on the cited documents satisfied due process because the defendant had an opportunity to contest inaccuracies at the sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a defamation action in which Vegod Corporation and another firm sued ABC over a KGO-TV broadcast alleging that the companies had deceived the public by selling inferior merchandise at inflated prices during a close-out sale for the City of Paris department store. The trial court ruled that the corporate plaintiffs were public figures under Gertz v. Robert Welch and thus required to prove actual malice under New York Times v. Sullivan, which they conceded they could not do, resulting in judgment for the defendants. The California Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the plaintiffs were not public figures because they had not achieved pervasive fame or voluntarily thrust themselves into a particular public controversy, and their conduct of the store closing did not place them in that category for purposes of the broadcast. The court reasoned that the actual-malice requirement protects free debate by preventing unreasonable self-censorship, that corporations and individuals receive equivalent First Amendment treatment in defamation cases, and that the facts here did not trigger the higher standard.

free speechtorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Jerome Lackner, who was sued for medical malpractice by defendants and prevailed when the suit was dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. Lackner then filed an action for malicious prosecution against the defendants and their attorneys, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a termination based on the statute of limitations is a procedural defense that does not reflect on the merits of the underlying claim or the plaintiff's innocence. The court reasoned that only terminations reflecting on the substantive merits can support a malicious prosecution claim, and procedural bars like the statute of limitations do not qualify as favorable terminations for this purpose.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the People, through the Riverside County District Attorney, suing the owner and operators of a mobile home park, along with Wells Fargo, for alleged violations of the Mobilehome Parks Act and related regulations, claiming these acts amounted to unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code and seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. After the trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to 59 causes of action, the People appealed only eight counts alleging unfair competition. The court held that the district attorney has standing to prosecute such claims because violations of other statutes can constitute unlawful business practices under the broad definition in Business and Professions Code section 17200, even though primary enforcement authority for the Mobilehome Parks Act rests with the Department of Housing and Community Development. This conclusion followed precedents allowing parallel unfair competition actions despite specific regulatory schemes, as the statute permits suits against any forbidden business practice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a minor, Eric J., who appealed a juvenile court order continuing his wardship and committing him to the Youth Authority after findings that he committed burglary and contempt of court by violating prior probation conditions. The Supreme Court of California modified the commitment order to set the maximum term of confinement at three years and two months with credit for forty-six days in custody, rather than the three-and-one-half years initially determined, and affirmed the order as modified. The court upheld the admissibility of the minor's confession to a private citizen, ruling that Miranda warnings were not required because the questioning was not custodial interrogation by law enforcement and lacked any police complicity or agency. The decision applied Welfare and Institutions Code sections 726 and 731 to calculate the maximum term based on the principal felony term without aggregating the misdemeanor contempt or applying adult sentencing rules for consecutive terms.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Reynolds Metals Co. suing the shareholders and directors of bankrupt companies, alleging they were alter egos personally liable for debts under a consignment agreement without an attorney fees clause and two promissory notes that allowed collection costs including up to 15 percent attorney fees. After the trial court rejected the alter ego claims, it awarded defendants over $80,000 in attorney fees; the Supreme Court reversed that award. The court held that Civil Code section 1717 creates reciprocal attorney fees rights for prevailing nonsignatory defendants sued on a contract, but fees must be limited to those incurred on the contract causes of action and capped at the 15 percent contractual limit in the notes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the validity of the Political Reform Act of 1974, a voter initiative regulating campaign contributions, lobbying activities, conflicts of interest, and related election practices, after a lower court enjoined its enforcement. The California Supreme Court addressed challenges claiming the initiative violated the single-subject rule for initiatives under the state constitution, that lobbyist contribution bans infringed First Amendment rights, and that disclosure and gift limits violated equal protection. The court held that the Act satisfied the single-subject rule because its provisions were reasonably germane to the goal of preventing corruption and undue influence in political processes, and it rejected the constitutional challenges to the core provisions while noting some prior invalidations of specific sections under federal precedent like Buckley v. Valeo. The decision granted the petition in part by vacating the broad injunction against the entire law.

electionsfree speech

The case concerned a defendant convicted under Health and Safety Code section 11355 after he offered to sell what he claimed was LSD to undercover officers but allegedly offered to deliver a substitute substance instead. The trial court denied a motion for acquittal and instructed the jury that an offer to sell followed by an offer to deliver a different substance constituted the offense, without requiring proof of specific intent regarding the substitute. The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment, concluding that when the violation involves an offer to deliver a non-controlled substance in lieu of the one offered for sale, the statute requires specific intent to make that delivery, and the jury was not properly instructed on this element. The court found that prior cases did not impose an actual delivery requirement but did support the need for a specific-intent instruction on the substitute-offer prong.

criminal law

The case concerned whether a trial court could use Penal Code section 1385 to strike a jury's finding that the defendant used a firearm in a robbery, thereby allowing probation despite the mandatory prohibition in section 1203.06. The California Supreme Court held that the trial court erred, ruling that section 1203.06's mandatory denial of probation for firearm use in enumerated crimes cannot be circumvented by striking allegations or findings under section 1385. The court's reasoning focused on statutory interpretation and legislative history, noting that earlier laws allowed limited judicial discretion for probation but the 1975 enactment of section 1203.06 eliminated exceptions in the interests of justice for covered offenses, making any contrary construction nullify the Legislature's intent to restrict probation in such cases. The facts involved a first-time offender who robbed a store with an unloaded gun to influence a business decision, but the jury found the requisite intent and firearm use.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case concerned challenges to decisions by the California Public Utilities Commission granting Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company rate increases of $41.5 million and $4.7 million to offset higher gas purchase costs, along with the commission's chosen method of allocating those increases through a five-tier inverted residential rate design emphasizing conservation, with no increase to lifeline rates and higher charges for certain nonresidential and interruptible users. Petitioners argued that altering the rate spread involved major policy choices that could not properly occur in an abbreviated offset proceeding but required a full general rate case. The court concluded that offset proceedings are limited to adjusting for abnormal cost or revenue changes while preserving the overall rate structure from the general proceeding, and that the commission's approach improperly made substantial allocation policy decisions without adequate findings or the procedural safeguards of a general rate case.

business & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure