California Opinions
Cal Case Law Search Tip  
Case Summaries Directory
Case of The day Archives

Case of the Day

Gag order that prevented defense counsel from discussing the contents of two declarations by witnesses with Defendant requires reversal of attempted murder conviction.  Court's restrictions before trial and during examination of  witness violated Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to consult with his attorney. court order barring defense counsel from discussing the contents of witnesses' written declaration with Defendant Townley,  Appellate court concludes that this order unjustifiably infringed on Defendant's constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The defect is structural. Defendant is entitled to reversal without making a showing of prejudice resulting from this error. (Excellent analysis defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel) People v. Hernandez -H031992A-11/9/09 CA6

■ Childhood sexual molestation victims time barred irrespective of discovery. Childhood sexual molestation victims whose claims were time barred before January 1, 2003, had to sue during the ensuing one-year revival period regardless of whether they had yet discovered the link between the earlier abuse and their adult onset of psychological injuries from that abuse. Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively from the date they take effect unless (1) they contain express language of retroactivity, or (2) other sources provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive application.  Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively from the date they take effect unless (1) they contain express language of retroactivity, or (2) other sources provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive application. Common Law Equitable Discovery Does Not Apply
Doe v. R.C. Bishop of San Diego -B209557-11/6/09 CA2/8

■ Appeal not timely filed dismissed
Appellate court has no jurisdiction to entertain appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. There are no reported cases, statutes or rules which allow the trial court to grant relief from an untimely notice of appeal. Unless the notice [of appeal] is actually or constructively filed within the appropriate filing period, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the appeal and must dismiss the appeal."   People v. Lyons -B212253-11/5/09 CA2/6

■  Prosecutorial misconduct: denigration "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Sole claim on appeal: Power Point presentation used by the prosecutor closing argument to illustrate the reasonable doubt standard.  The Power Point presentation consisted of eight puzzle pieces forming a picture of the Statue of Liberty.  The first six pieces came onto the screen sequentially, leaving two additional pieces missing.  The prosecutor argued it was possible to know what was depicted “beyond a reasonable doubt” even without the missing pieces.  The prosecutor then added the two missing pieces to show the picture was in fact the Statue of Liberty.  The trial court overruled defendant’s objection to the presentation.  Defendant now claims reversal is required because the prosecutor’s Power Point presentation was prosecutorial misconduct denigrating the reasonable doubt standard. Appellate court concludes the presentation was improper, but not prejudicial in this case. Conviction affirmed. People v. Katzenberger -C058883-11/2/09 CA3

■ Principles of statutory  construction. The determination of the meaning of a statute is a question of law that is subject to de novo review.
 In re Z.C. -A123994-10/2/09 CA1/2

■ The trial court erred by granting plaintiffs’ petition to confirm the arbitration award without determining whether defendants consented to or ratified the arbitration agreement. 
(Even if we assume the court made an implied finding to that effect, the finding was unsupported by substantial evidence.)  Based on the reporter’s transcript of the hearing, it does not appear the court ever considered the issue.  Because the court failed to consider and rule on the question of defendants’ consent, we remand the matter to the court for a hearing on the issue.  Toal v. Tardif -G040112-10/30/09 CA4/3

■ Search conducted incident to arrest was beyond the scope of the
arm’s-reach rule of Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752. People. v. Leal -H031174A-10/29/09 CA6  

■ Judgment void, in whole or in part, as being beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and subject to collateral attack, 311 South Spring v. Dept. of General Services -B212165-10/28/09 CA2/1 

■ Invasion of Privacy: Elements required to establish a claim for invasion of privacy under the California Constitution Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma -D054355-10/8/09 CA4/1

■ Sixth Amendment. Forfeiture of right by wrongdoing doctrine exception to the confrontation clause. A defendant may forfeit the right to confront a witness when he has killed that witness or otherwise made the witness unavailable at trial.  People v. Banos -B194272A-10/19/09 CA2/8

■ Good discussion of summary judgment. Nazir v. United Airlines-A121651-10/9/09 CA1/2

■ Sacramento County has governmental immunity when firefighter who was allowed to take fire truck to the Porn Star Costume Ball and even allowed to pick up women allegedly on the fire truck sexually assaulted a female photographer M.P. v. City of Sacramento -C057324-8/31/09 CA3

■Strauss v. Horton-S168047-5/26/09 SC (This is the same sex marriage case Excellent analysis-state and federal equal protection law -a must read.)

■ Knight v Jewett 3Cal.4th 296 11Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 1992-08-24
(Excellent Analysis-primary Assumption of Risk)

■ Good Analysis -Summary Judgment
Y.K.A. Industries, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, -H031583-5/27/09

■ Good Analysis -Hearsay Rule- Exceptions: Jazayeri v. Mao -B195083- 5/27/09 CA2/4 

■ Attorney-Medical Lien Analysis:
Gilman v. Dalby -C050294-8/10/09 CA3

■ Principles of Contract Interpretation
DVD Copy v. Kaleidescape -H031631-8/12/09 CA6 

■ Excellent Analysis Prosecutorial Misconduct-New Trial Granted
US v Reyes 2009-80-18-No. 08-10047
PDF File

■ Case of The day Archives

■ Case of The day Archives

California Landmark Cases

■.Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins.Overruled Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 23 Cal.3d 880 [153 Cal.Rptr. 842, 592 P.2d 329]. that provided that a private litigant could bring an action to impose civil liability on an insurer for engaging in unfair claims settlement practices. .Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 , 758 P.2d 58; 250 Cal.Rptr. 116

• ggggg
• ggggg
• 7777

bcc