Just this week, the California Court of Appeals for the 2nd District reversed the conviction of a defendant who was arrested in a Los Angeles park for carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in his backpack. The reversal allowed the defendant to avoid a 365 day term of incarceration and “Defendant Not Guilty for Carrying Dirk or Dagger in His Backpack”
The Trial Court Decides if There Will Be a Lesser Offense Instructions
In a case recently decided by the California Supreme Court, a man accused of killing his son argued that he was entitled to a lesser-included offense jury instruction. The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding that, except in capital murder cases, there is no absolute right to a lesser-included offense instruction. “The Trial Court Decides if There Will Be a Lesser Offense Instructions”
Parole Board Admonished for Arbitrarily Denying Parole
When an inmate becomes eligible for parole, they go before a parole board for a suitability hearing. The parole board’s job at that hearing is to determine whether that inmate is suitable for parole, meaning he is no longer considered to be dangerous or a threat to public safety. The “Parole Board Admonished for Arbitrarily Denying Parole”
Operators of Private Foster Home Misappropriate Public Funds
In order to be convicted of misappropriating public funds, the prosecution must prove that a person was charged with receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public monies, and then appropriated the funds for his own personal use. Money is public money depending on the official character in which the money “Operators of Private Foster Home Misappropriate Public Funds”
Failure to Give Reasonable Doubt Instruction May Not Matter
In an extreme and confusing departure from a long line of precedent, the California Supreme Court recently held that a trial court’s failure to give a standard reasonable doubt instruction, in fact, its failure to give any written reasonable doubt instruction at all, was harmless error and did not require “Failure to Give Reasonable Doubt Instruction May Not Matter”
Convictions from Other States Count as Strikes
California enacted the “three strikes” law in 1994. The goal of this law was to deter people from committing future crimes, and to impose longer prison sentences on repeat offenders. A strike is a conviction for certain crimes, typically serious or violent felonies. The crimes that qualify as a strike “Convictions from Other States Count as Strikes”
Supreme Court Reverses Decision of a San Diego Federal Judge
The United States Supreme Court has held that a San Diego federal district court judge Barry Ted Moskowitz was not authorized to impose a prison sentence in order to promote the defendant’s rehabilitation. In reversing defendant’s criminal sentence, the court has ruled that Judge Moskowitz erroneously lengthened a prison term “Supreme Court Reverses Decision of a San Diego Federal Judge”
Supreme Court Explains the Mental State Requirement for Arson in California
In California, there are two main statutes criminalizing conduct that results in a fire. An individual may be prosecuted for committing the crime of arson or the crime of recklessly causing a fire. A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets a fire, burns, “Supreme Court Explains the Mental State Requirement for Arson in California”
Supreme Court: BAC Reports Subject to the Sixth Amendment Scrutiny
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution is prohibited from introducing a forensic laboratory report containing a BAC (blood alcohol concentration) certification through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. The “Supreme Court: BAC Reports Subject to the Sixth Amendment Scrutiny”
Supreme Court: Age of a Child is a Relevant Factor in Miranda Cases
Recently, the United States Supreme Court has held that the age of a child subjected to police questioning is a relevant factor to consider in determining where a minor must be given Miranda warnings before being questioned by law enforcement officers. Under Miranda, an individual must be advised of the “Supreme Court: Age of a Child is a Relevant Factor in Miranda Cases”