Co-defendant's statements - erroneous admission prejudice standard
United States v. Nguyen (9th Cir., 5/15/09, 07-30197) 09 C.D.O.S. 5925
Admission of co-defendant's statements violated Sixth Amendment confrontation clause (Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 43), and government failed to prove error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not matter that it may have been the co-defendant's counsel, and not the prosecutor, who elicited the statement.
Confessions - Sixth Amendment violation; admissible
Kansas v. Ventris (U.S. Sup. Ct., 4/29/09, 07-1356) 09 C.D.O.S. 5197
Defendant's statements to jailhouse informant obtained in violation of Sixth Amendment admissible for impeachment after defendant testified.
Counsel - self-representation denial
People v. Watts (3rd Dist., 4/29/09, C056491) 09 C.D.O.S. 5235
Request for self-representation properly denied when defendant had previously shown he was unable or unwilling to abide by courtroom rules.
False immigration papers - statute not repealed by implication
People v. Valladares (4th Dist., 5/15/09, G039799) 09 C.D.O.S. 6033
Penal Code section 113, which punishes as a felony the manufacture, distribution and sale of false immigration documents was not repealed by implication by the passage of Penal Code section 112 (manufacture of false government document, a misdemeanor). The court harmonizes the provisions and holds that they give prosecutors the option of charging a felony or a misdemeanor.
Fines - consideration of other fines and assessments
People v. Castellanos (2nd Dist., 5/15/09, B210705) 09 C.D.O.S. 6023
Fine imposed by Penal Code section 1202.5 on theft-related convictions is subject to additional penalty assessments, the state surcharge, the state construction penalty, and other assessments. Therefore, when deciding whether the defendant has the ability to pay the fine, all the penalty assessments must be taken into consideration.
Justice Kriegler, in concurrence, points out that "that the increasing complexity of California’s system of fines, fees, and penalties has reached the point of having a negative impact on the administration of justice."
Editorial note: Amen! I would love to see statistics on how much money is actually collected from these assessements. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the amount of time wasted by the courts dealing with these laws far outstrips any amount collected.
GBI enhancement - use of dogs
People v. Frazier (3rd Dist., 4/29/09, C057684) 09 C.D.O.S. 5228
Enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.7 for intentional infliction of great bodily injury proper when defendant inflicted the injury by instructing her dogs to attack the victim.
Habeas corpus - federal - presentation of issue
Farmer v. Baldwin (9th Cir., 4/29/09, 06-35635) 09 C.D.O.S. 5201
Petitioner properly presented issue to state court by incorporating by reference arguments made in intermediate appellate brief, because Oregon state rules permitted it.
Immigration consequences - Penal Code section 245(a)(1) conviction
United States v. Heron-Salinas (9th Cir., 5/20/09, 08-50276) 09 C.D.O.S. 6085
Deportation underlying charge of attempted re-entry was valid following conviction for violating Penal Code section 245(a)(1) (assault with firearm), as the statute defines a "crime of violence" and renders convicted person "an aggravated felon." Court does not hold that all assaults are necessarily crimes of violence, but the use of a firearm is enough to bring it within the federal definition contained in 18 U.S.C. section 16.
Jury instructions - failure to define "likely"
People v. Chaffin (4th Dist., 5/14/09, E046217) 09 C.D.O.S. 5936
Court's failure to define word "likely" in child endangerment statute (Pen. Code sec. 273a, subd. (a)) was not prejudicial, since factual question posed by omitted definition was resolved adversely to defendant in other properly given instructions.
Jury instructions - standard of prejudice
Byrd v. Lewis (9th Cir., 5/15/09, 06-15977) 09 C.D.O.S. 5918
State court's application of harmless error review to trial court's jury instructions that erroneously lowered burden of proof was not unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. Denial of habeas petition affirmed.
Juveniles - dismissal of more recent petition
V.C. v. Superior Court (People) (3rd Dist., 5/19/09, C059050) 09 C.D.O.S. 6062
Sacramento County Judge Jane Ure abused her discretion in dismissing the most recently sustained petition for an offense which did not qualify for DJF (formerly CYA) commitment, in order to cause an earlier petition (for a qualifying offense) to become the most recent offense, and allow the judge to commit the minor to the state institution. Court grants a writ even though the order was appealable "to provide guidance to the bench and bar earlier than would be normal on an appeal."
Multiple convictions - carjacking and stolen property
People v. Magallanes (4th Dist., 4/29/09, G040133) 09 C.D.O.S. 5257
Defendant could not be convicted both of carjacking and receipt of stolen property because stolen property was same car taken during carjacking.
Pitchess - appellate reversal requires prejudice
People v. Gaines (Ca. Sup. Ct., 4/30/09, S157008) 09 C.D.O.S. 5281
Trial court's erroneous denial of Pitchess motion is not reversible per se. If error is found on appeal, matter is remanded for new Pitchess hearing. If review discloses discoverable material, the trial court must order disclosure, then permit defendant to show prejudice from failure to disclose, and order new trial if there was reasonable probability outcome would have been different had information been disclosed.
Priors - constitutional validity not submitted to jury
People v. Curl (Ca. Sup. Ct., 5/18/09, S034072) 09 C.D.O.S. 6008
Challenge to constitutional validity of underlying prior guilty plea that formed basis for special circumstance allegation did not have to be found by jury beyond reasonable doubt. Curl v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1292 was not superseded by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466.
Restitution - driving without license
In re Ashlie M. (3rd Dist., 4/8/09, C058043) 09 C.D.O.S. 5299
Restitution for victim's burial costs proper when minor's driving (without a license) was cause of accident resulting in victim's death.
Restitution - dismissed count
In re T.C. (3rd Dist., 4/8/09, C058834) 09 C.D.O.S. 5302
Probation condition that minor pay restitution for damages resulting from dismissed count proper even though minor had not entered waiver under People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754. Rule is different for adults. (Pen. Code sec. 1192.3, subd. (b).)
Sanctions - description of conduct required
People v. Ward (Song) (2nd Dist., 5/20/09, B212432) 09 C.D.O.S. 6086
Before starting the trial, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patrick T. Madden warned both counsel not to make "speaking objections." In objecting to a line of questioning, defense counsel said, in front of the jury, that the prosecutor's actions constituted "misconduct." The court warned counsel not to accuse each other of misconduct in front of the jury. In closing, defense counsel argued to the jury that misconduct had occurred. After the trial, the judge imposed a sanction of $200 under section 177.5 for violating the court's order. The court of appeal found that although defense counsel violated a lawful order, the matter had to be remanded for the court to issue a written order reciting in detail the circumstances justifying the imposition of the sanction.
Self-representation - midtrial attempt to revoke
People v. Lawrence (Ca. Sup. Ct., 4/30/09, S160736) 09 C.D.O.S. 5285
When a defendant who has elected to represent himself (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 seeks to revoke the waiver of counsel during trial, court must exercise discretion, considering the defendant's reasons against the delay or disruption of the process. Here, defendant who was being tried with a co-defendant failed to articulate a compelling reason for revoking waiver, and there would have been delay and disruption, so refusal to permit revocation was not abuse of discretion.
Sex registration - equal protection violation
People v. Ranscht (4th Dist., 5/15/09, D052811) 09 C.D.O.S. 6029
People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, which holds that imposing sex registration requirement on offender convicted of voluntary oral copulation with 16-year old violates equal protection, applies to offender convicted of voluntary sexual penetration of 13-year-old, because similarly situated offender convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a victim of the same age would not be subject to registration. Disagrees with People v. Manchel (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1108.
Theft - false pretenses instruction inadequate
People v. Henning (3rd Dist., 4/29/09, C058105) 09 C.D.O.S. 5230
Corroboration instruction in CALCRIM 1804 instruction on theft by false pretenses is incorrect in failing to state that the writing accompanying the false promise must also be false. Error "manifestly" harmless in light of "abundant, indeed overwhelming" evidence.
Weapons - discharging enhancement
Dean v. United States (U.S. Sup. Ct., 4/29/09, 08-5274) 09 C.D.O.S. 5192
Enhancement for discharging firearm (18 U.S.C. section 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (iii)) does not require proof defendant intended to discharge gun. Here, it looks like gun went off by accident while defendant was robbing a bank. No matter.
