The case involved the conviction of Martin Felipe Miramontes on multiple counts of sexual offenses against children, including sodomy, oral copulation, lewd acts on a child, use of harmful matter to seduce a minor, and possession of child pornography, along with related enhancements for multiple victims and substantial sexual conduct. Miramontes appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual offenses from 2003 under Evidence Code section 1108 over his section 352 objections and that the statute and related jury instructions violated his due process rights. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and 146-year-to-life sentence, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the evidence after balancing its probative value against prejudice and that section 1108 and CALCRIM No. 1191 did not infringe on due process protections as established by prior precedent.
The case involved Anthony Aranda's appeal after his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and active participation in a criminal street gang stemming from a fatal shooting during a fight at a house party attended by rival gang members. The appellate court reversed the gang participation conviction because the trial court omitted the standard CALJIC No. 2.90 instruction on the prosecution's burden of proof and reasonable doubt, and other instructions did not cure the omission for that count, rendering the error prejudicial. It affirmed the manslaughter conviction on the ground that instructions given for murder and lesser included offenses adequately conveyed the reasonable doubt standard. The court also upheld the denial of use immunity for a defense witness, finding the proposed testimony duplicative of the defendant's own account and thus neither clearly exculpatory nor essential.
The case involved Karl Joseph Russell, who was convicted after a court trial of first degree murder and other offenses including residential burglary, vehicle theft, and evading an officer causing death. The court sentenced him to 26 years to life, with the murder conviction based on the felony-murder rule applied to the burglary via the escape rule. Russell appealed only the murder conviction, arguing that the escape rule should not extend to burglary flight, that the evidence failed to show the death occurred during an escape from burglary, and that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the felony-murder escape rule applies to burglary and that the evidence showed the fatal crash occurred as part of one continuous transaction before Russell reached a place of temporary safety. The court also rejected the cruel and unusual punishment claim.
This case involved Artis Earl Gorham's appeal from the denial of his motions to set aside a 1998 default judgment for child support and paternity obtained by the County of San Diego Department of Child Support Services, and to dismiss the action. Gorham argued that the judgment was void because he was never properly served with the summons and complaint, as falsely represented in the process server's proof of service, meaning the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and that the case should be dismissed for failure to serve within three years under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.210 and 583.250. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, holding that Gorham's delay in seeking relief under statutory provisions did not preclude equitable relief where the court had never acquired fundamental personal jurisdiction due to the lack of valid service. The court directed the trial court to dismiss the action on that basis.
In People v. Busser, the defendant pleaded guilty to misdemeanor hit and run and felony insurance fraud after lying to his insurer GEICO about the circumstances of a collision, leading the trial court to order him to pay restitution for vehicle repair costs that GEICO had covered for both parties involved. The Court of Appeal reversed the restitution order as to the repair costs, though it upheld the award for GEICO's investigation expenses. The core reasoning was that under Penal Code section 1202.4 and the rule from People v. Crow, the repair payments did not qualify as losses caused by the criminal misrepresentation, since GEICO would have been contractually obligated to pay the same amounts if Busser had told the truth from the outset. The court noted that GEICO's potential civil remedies, such as contract rescission, were separate from criminal restitution requirements.
Walter Wolf, a former director of San Elijo Ranch, Inc. (SERI) and 20 percent shareholder of its parent company CDS Devco, petitioned for a writ of mandate to enforce inspection rights over SERI's corporate records under Corporations Code section 1602 after being notified he would not be reelected to the board. The defendants demurred on the ground that Wolf lacked standing as a non-director. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the resulting judgment of dismissal. The court held that the absolute inspection rights in section 1602 belong only to current directors and that Wolf had not pleaded facts sufficient to support any equitable exception or extension of those rights to a former director.