CA Pub. Decisions

A decision as to Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in proceedings other than criminal prosecutions.

A decision regarding rebuttable presumption that an award of spousal support not be made to a spouse who has been convicted of intraspousal domestic violence[1].

A decision regarding lewd conduct on a child unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than himself and misdemeanor child molest.

A decision regarding possession of cocaine being under the influence of a controlled substance, possession of paraphernalia and violation of a protective order.

A decision regarding civil compromise of certain misdemeanor offenses if a criminal defendant adequately compensates the person injured for all costs incurred. (Pen. Code, §§ 1377-1379.) Upon proof of compensation and satisfaction of the injured person, the court can dismiss the criminal charges against the defendant.

decision regarding civil compromise of certain misdemeanor offenses if a criminal defendant adequately compensates the person injured for all costs incurred. (Pen. Code, §§ 1377-1379.) Upon proof of compensation and satisfaction of the injured person, the court can dismiss the criminal charges against the defendant.

Prospective jurors in a capital case may be discharged for cause based solely on answers to written questionnaire if it is clear that they are unwilling to temporarily set aside own beliefs and follow the law. Trial court did not abuse discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 223 in setting time limit on counsel's voir dire of potential jurors individually or in the aggregate. When trial court determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged by prosecution because of bias, court need not ask the prosecutor to justify challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the court has already denied a Batson/Wheeler mistrial motion. Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate four jurors who did not wholeheartedly support death penalty did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process, fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, or a reliable judgment.

Prospective jurors in a capital case may be discharged for cause based solely on answers to written questionnaire if it is clear that they are unwilling to temporarily set aside own beliefs and follow the law. Trial court did not abuse discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 223 in setting time limit on counsel's voir dire of potential jurors individually or in the aggregate. When trial court determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged by prosecution because of bias, court need not ask the prosecutor to justify challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the court has already denied a Batson/Wheeler mistrial motion. Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate four jurors who did not wholeheartedly support death penalty did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process, fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, or a reliable judgment.

Prospective jurors in a capital case may be discharged for cause based solely on answers to written questionnaire if it is clear that they are unwilling to temporarily set aside own beliefs and follow the law. Trial court did not abuse discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 223 in setting time limit on counsel's voir dire of potential jurors individually or in the aggregate. When trial court determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged by prosecution because of bias, court need not ask the prosecutor to justify challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the court has already denied a Batson/Wheeler mistrial motion. Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate four jurors who did not wholeheartedly support death penalty did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process, fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, or a reliable judgment.

Prospective jurors in a capital case may be discharged for cause based solely on answers to written questionnaire if it is clear that they are unwilling to temporarily set aside own beliefs and follow the law. Trial court did not abuse discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 223 in setting time limit on counsel's voir dire of potential jurors individually or in the aggregate. When trial court determines that defendant has made a prima facie showing that a particular prospective juror has been challenged by prosecution because of bias, court need not ask the prosecutor to justify challenges to other prospective jurors of the same group for which the court has already denied a Batson/Wheeler mistrial motion. Prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate four jurors who did not wholeheartedly support death penalty did not violate defendant's constitutional rights to due process, fundamentally fair trial by an impartial jury, or a reliable judgment.

Penal Code Sec. 12020(a)(1), which prohibits the possession of a variety of weapons, requires a culpable mental state, and prosecution must prove the possessor's knowledge of the weapon's illegal characteristics. When prohibited weapon is a short-barreled rifle, prosecution need only establish the defendant's knowledge of the shortness of the rifle, not its precise dimensions. Trial court's failure to instruct on knowledge did not require reversal of defendant's conviction for illegally possessing a rifle that was modified so that the barrel was less than the legally allowed 26 inches in overall length where defendant admitted that he had seen the gun in the drawer of a workbench and had "probably picked it up to look at it," so that he necessarily saw that the stock had been crudely sawn off and knew that the gun was too short to meet legal requirements.

A decision wherein without permission from either her parents or the host parent, she left the house in the company of a girlfriend and some boys from school to hang out at the house of one of the boys, where she alleges she was brutally raped by the boys.

A decision wherein, Without permission from either her parents or the host parent, she left the house in the company of a girlfriend and some boys from school to hang out at the house of one of the boys, where she alleges she was brutally raped by the boys.

A construction site can be a dangerous place. There are some people who are keenly aware of this danger -- construction workers. Seasoned and mature construction workers who have risen to the top of this industry and who are supervisors, managers, and owners are not only keenly aware of the dangers; they also teach and are responsible for construction safety. They may also suffer financially for injuries occurring at a construction site.A decision wherein appellant was and is chargeable with caring for his own safety.