This consolidated case addresses whether a regulation validly defined "good cause" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6601.3 to allow the Board of Parole Hearings to extend an inmate's custody up to 45 days past the scheduled release date for completing a sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluation. The court determined that the regulation was invalid because it required only some evidence of a qualifying conviction and likely SVP status, without linking the showing to circumstances necessitating the delay. It further ruled that the Board's reliance on the regulation was excusable as a good faith mistake of law under section 6601, subdivision (a)(2), so the SVP petitions filed during the extended custody period were not subject to dismissal for lack of timely lawful custody.
The case involved defendant Sonny Enraca, who was convicted in 1999 of the first-degree murders of two men and assault with a deadly weapon on a woman during a gang-related fight at an illegal street race in 1994. He was also found to have used a firearm and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang, leading to a death sentence. On automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence, upholding the trial court's proceedings and rejecting challenges to the evidence and legal rulings.
This case concerned whether manufacturers of valves and pumps used in Navy warships could be held strictly liable or negligent for asbestos exposure from insulation, gaskets, and packing made by third parties that were used with their products. The California Supreme Court held that manufacturers are not liable for harm caused by another manufacturer's products unless their own product substantially contributed to the harm or they substantially participated in creating a harmful combined use. The court reasoned that existing strict products liability law applies only to defects in a defendant's own products and does not extend to foreseeable risks from replacement parts or adjacent products made by others, as this would not serve the purposes of strict liability or public policy.
This case concerns whether claims adjusters employed by Liberty Mutual and Golden Eagle are exempt from California overtime requirements as administrative employees under IWC Wage Order 4. Plaintiffs filed class actions alleging misclassification and seeking unpaid overtime; the trial court partially decertified the class based on the pre- and post-2000 versions of the wage order, citing Bell cases for earlier claims. The Court of Appeal ruled for plaintiffs, holding the adjusters nonexempt as a matter of law under both versions of the order. The California Supreme Court reversed, concluding the Court of Appeal misapplied the law by interpreting the wage order categorically without properly analyzing the exemption criteria under the applicable regulations and statutes.
This case concerns a habeas corpus petition by Richard Shaputis, an inmate serving 15 years to life for a 1987 second-degree murder conviction arising from domestic violence, challenging the Board of Parole Hearings' denial of parole suitability. The California Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review of parole decisions is limited to the deferential 'some evidence' standard, which requires only that the record contain some support for the executive branch's finding that release would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. The court held that the Court of Appeal had improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its judgment for the Board's, noting that Shaputis's refusal to participate in a psychological evaluation or testify limited the available information and that the Board's reliance on the offense's gravity and his lack of insight was reasonable. The decision also provided guidance that lack of insight must be rationally tied to current dangerousness in each case rather than applied as a rote factor.
This case involved the first-degree murder convictions and death sentences of codefendants Michael Allen and Cleamon Johnson for the 1991 killings of two individuals in Los Angeles. During guilt-phase deliberations, the trial court discharged one juror after other jurors reported that he had prejudged the case and relied on evidence not presented at trial; the court then seated an alternate and the reconstituted jury convicted the defendants. The California Supreme Court reversed both the guilt and penalty verdicts, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion under Penal Code section 1089 because the record failed to show to a demonstrable reality that the discharged juror was unable to perform his duty, and neither prejudgment nor reliance on faulty logic or analysis constitutes good cause for removal.
