CA Pub. Decisions

At murder defendant's second trial, conducted due to court's misinstruction of jury on reasonable doubt at first trial, prosecutor's withholding of police reports about a police investigation into a shooting outside a convenience store after first trial but before second trial violated due process, where reports contained evidence indicating that a key prosecution witness, whom prosecutor described as having no pre existing biases or reasons to lie about defendant, had connections to gang members and thus had motivation to give false testimony.

Saim is an artist. He loves to do the painting work. He expresses his passion about the paintings through articles. He works for the company paintingsgifts4u ( www.paintingsgifts4u.com ) HE is expert in all kinds of paintings specially on abstract art( www.paintingsgifts4u.com/as...asp/abstract-paintings.asp )

A modification decision.

Under the 2004 amendments to the workers' compensation law, where a partially disabled worker sustains a work related injury causing further permanent disability, the correct method to apportion worker's permanent disability is to subtract the percentage of permanent disability caused by factors other than the current industrial injury from the overall percentage of permanent disability, thus determining the percentage of permanent disability caused by the current injury, even if the current injury is to a completely different body part. The worker is then entitled to the monetary value of permanent disability benefits payable for this percentage of permanent disability.

Under the 2004 amendments to the workers' compensation law, where a partially disabled worker sustains a work related injury causing further permanent disability, the correct method to apportion worker's permanent disability is to subtract the percentage of permanent disability caused by factors other than the current industrial injury from the overall percentage of permanent disability, thus determining the percentage of permanent disability caused by the current injury, even if the current injury is to a completely different body part. The worker is then entitled to the monetary value of permanent disability benefits payable for this percentage of permanent disability.

Under the 2004 amendments to the workers' compensation law, where a partially disabled worker sustains a work related injury causing further permanent disability, the correct method to apportion worker's permanent disability is to subtract the percentage of permanent disability caused by factors other than the current industrial injury from the overall percentage of permanent disability, thus determining the percentage of permanent disability caused by the current injury, even if the current injury is to a completely different body part. The worker is then entitled to the monetary value of permanent disability benefits payable for this percentage of permanent disability.

Trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear qui tam relator's claim that telecommunications companies failed to report and deliver to state remaining balances on prepaid phone cards as required by the Unclaimed Property Law where allegations were already in the public domain and publicly available information was already sufficient to place the government on notice, and relator was not the original and direct source of the information.

Trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear qui tam relator's claim that telecommunications companies failed to report and deliver to state remaining balances on prepaid phone cards as required by the Unclaimed Property Law where allegations were already in the public domain and publicly available information was already sufficient to place the government on notice, and relator was not the original and direct source of the information.

Gang enhancement found in Penal Code Sec. 186.22(b) does not require that defendant's intent to enable or promote criminal endeavors by gang members must relate to criminal activity apart from the offense defendant commits.

Defendant's sentence for California DUI conviction was properly enhanced by previous Nevada DUI convictions even though defendant did not have a right to a jury trial in the Nevada proceedings.

Defendant's sentence for California DUI conviction was properly enhanced by previous Nevada DUI convictions even though defendant did not have a right to a jury trial in the Nevada proceedings.

A modification decision.

Where 26-year delay in prosecuting defendant for murder was not the result of negligence and not for the purpose of gaining an advantage over defendant but was caused solely due to the limits of forensic technology at the time of the initial investigation, which resulted in insufficient evidence to identify defendant as a suspect, and when forensic technology in the form of a DNA databank became available to identify defendant as a candidate for further investigation and testing, defendant was charged with murder, the delay between the date of the crime and the filing of the complaint did not violate defendant's right to due process of law. DNA evidence was properly presented to the jury where the DNA databank search merely identified defendant as a possible candidate as the murderer and was not the basis for declaring that his DNA matched DNA on the evidentiary samples. The latter determination was made based on further, complete testing using scientific techniques found to be reliable and admissible.

Where 26-year delay in prosecuting defendant for murder was not the result of negligence and not for the purpose of gaining an advantage over defendant but was caused solely due to the limits of forensic technology at the time of the initial investigation, which resulted in insufficient evidence to identify defendant as a suspect, and when forensic technology in the form of a DNA databank became available to identify defendant as a candidate for further investigation and testing, defendant was charged with murder, the delay between the date of the crime and the filing of the complaint did not violate defendant's right to due process of law. DNA evidence was properly presented to the jury where the DNA databank search merely identified defendant as a possible candidate as the murderer and was not the basis for declaring that his DNA matched DNA on the evidentiary samples. The latter determination was made based on further, complete testing using scientific techniques found to be reliable and admissible.