California Supreme Court

The court held that the Riverside County Sheriff's seizure of voted ballots pursuant to search warrants violated the Elections Code because the ballots could not be removed from the elections official's custody, even for a criminal investigation.

The court held that the Attorney General’s constitutional direct-supervision power and statutory authority permit him to issue binding, investigation-specific directions to a sheriff when those directions further uniform and adequate enforcement of state law.

The California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment of death imposed on Larry Kusuth Hazlett, Jr. for the 1978 rape-murder of Tana Woolley, tried under the 1977 death penalty law. The court held that the prosecutor's peremptory strike of Prospective Juror A.E., the sole African-American remaining in the venire, did not…

The California Supreme Court held that the gross abuse of discretion standard of Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.255(b) does not govern a privately owned utility's objection to a public entity's right to take its property; that standard is confined to challenges to the validity of a resolution of necessity, while…

The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment granting Joseph Mayor's petition for writ of mandate, which had directed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to rescind its order granting Ross Valley Sanitation District's timely petition for reconsideration 144 days after filing, well beyond…

The court affirmed Pearson's second death judgment after rejecting challenges to the reappointment and continued representation by his original trial counsel, the conduct of the penalty retrial, and the preservation of his prior guilt-phase convictions.

The court held that the trial court erred by finding a retrospective competency hearing feasible nearly two decades after the original competency proceeding. The prosecution failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the available record, diminished by the absence of counsel at the original hearing…

The court held that a habeas corpus court granting relief on a narrow, retroactive claim under Senate Bill No. 620 was not required to vacate the defendant's entire valid sentence or conduct a full resentencing under later ameliorative laws.

The court affirmed Shove’s convictions and death judgment, concluding that the challenged search evidence was admissible under the good-faith exception, the trial court properly excluded or limited speculative third-party culpability evidence, and the remaining evidentiary and jury-selection rulings did not warrant…

The court held that Hernandez demonstrated prejudicial error under Penal Code section 1473.7(a)(1) because she did not meaningfully understand, have the ability to defend against, or knowingly accept the mandatory immigration consequences of her guilty plea.

The California Supreme Court held that the Government Claims Act occupies the entire field of presentation requirements for claims for money or damages against local public entities, including claims for local tax refunds, and therefore preempts the City of Carson's mandatory administrative refund procedures.

The California Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, granted a petition for writ of mandate and held that superior courts have a ministerial duty, under the in forma pauperis doctrine and its 2018 decision in Jameson, to provide civil litigants who cannot afford a private court reporter with a means of…

The California Supreme Court held that a magistrate's order dismissing a felony complaint is a dismissal in a 'felony case' appealable by the People to the Court of Appeal under Penal Code sections 1235 and 1238(a)(8), even though the felony allegations were charged only by complaint and no indictment or information…

The California Supreme Court held that a single section 998 offer of compromise presenting two independent, mutually exclusive sets of settlement terms, between which the offeree must choose in order to accept, is not categorically invalid for cost-shifting purposes.

The California Supreme Court held that the constitutional and statutory authority granted to public pension retirement boards under Proposition 162 and the County Employees Retirement Law does not include the power to unilaterally set civil‑service classifications or salary levels for system employees.

The California Supreme Court held that a drug manufacturer does not owe a duty of reasonable care to develop and commercialize a safer alternative drug when the existing drug is nondefective, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeal, remanding with instructions to grant summary judgment for Gilead on all causes of…

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded, holding that under Code of Civil Procedure §231.7(g) a striking party must both confirm a behavior-based reason and explain why that behavior matters to overcome the statutory presumption of invalidity, and that the court must still conduct a…

The California Supreme Court held that under PEPRA's amendment to Government Code section 31461(b)(2), a legacy member's retirement benefit calculation may not include cashed-out leave time exceeding the annual cashout limit set by the terms of employment, even when the employee designates a final compensation period…

The California Supreme Court held that an insured need not allege exhaustion of all underlying insurance to pursue either a declaratory relief claim or a tortious bad faith claim against an excess insurer.

The court held that the nearly year-long delay in providing E.A. an LPS conservatorship trial violated due process because it effectively eliminated her meaningful opportunity to be heard before the one-year deprivation of liberty, and because the delay was substantially attributable to court congestion and resource…

The court held that plaintiffs could not appeal after voluntarily dismissing their entire action while the trial court’s rulings had not finally resolved any pleaded claim. The dismissal terminated the action and forfeited the right to appeal; treating it as an appealable judgment would also permit the piecemeal…

The court held that the State Bar may require an attorney to pay restitution for specific losses directly caused by misconduct even when the victim is a nonclient and the underlying civil judgment includes tort damages.

The court held that a prior prison term enhancement was “imposed” for purposes of Penal Code section 1172.75 even though the sentencing court struck the punishment associated with it.

The court held that a second voluntary dismissal under the federal two-dismissal rule does not, by itself, preclude a later action on the same state-law claims in state court. The rule is a federal procedural bar that prevents refiling in the same federal court, not a rule of claim preclusion applicable in other…

The court held that the CEQA class 1 categorical exemption’s reference to a “negligible or no expansion of existing or former use” concerns the nature and scope of a facility’s changed or expanded use, not whether the change presents a negligible risk of environmental harm.

The court held that the word “proceedings” in Penal Code section 2900.5, subdivision (b), refers to an individual criminal case rather than a joint sentencing hearing. Presentence custody credits therefore must be attributable to the particular case for which credits are sought and do not automatically transfer across…

The court affirmed the judgment in this capital murder case based on the visible portion of the opinion. It held that defendant was not unlawfully detained when he consented to a blood draw, and it rejected challenges concerning juror bias, a mistrial, admission of evidence about an extramarital relationship, and…

The court upheld Chhuon's judgment except for vacating his gang enhancement, but reversed Pan's judgment in its entirety because counsel violated Pan's autonomy to maintain his innocence by conceding guilt over his express objection.

The court upheld Barrera’s convictions for two first degree murders, related child-abuse offenses, torture-murder special-circumstance findings, and death sentence. It concluded that substantial evidence supported both torture-murder and premeditated-murder theories, and that any assumed evidentiary or instructional…

The court reverses the judgment of death because the penalty phase was affected by errors under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, while affirming the judgment in all other respects and remanding for further proceedings.

The court held that bad-faith blanket challenges under section 170.6 may violate separation of powers when they materially impair the judiciary’s ability to administer justice and control judicial assignments.

The court held that the amended requirements governing upper-term sentences apply retroactively to Mitchell’s nonfinal judgment, even though she agreed to an upper-term sentence as part of a plea bargain. Her prior plea did not validly waive those newly recognized statutory and constitutional protections.

The court held that J.M. failed to state claims under either the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act or the Customer Records Act. Illuminate was not adequately alleged to be a statutory provider of health care, and J.M. was not adequately alleged to be Illuminate’s customer.

The court held that a nonkiller participant is liable under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2) only if, with intent to kill, the participant aided or abetted the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not merely in the underlying felony.

The court affirmed the judgment imposing death and a consecutive 45-year prison term. In the portions provided, it upheld admission of defendant's recorded confession, concluding that he was in Miranda custody but did not establish a prejudicial violation, that his Sacramento waiver was voluntary, that the confession…

The court held that a defendant is not categorically barred from seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 merely because a claim that jury instructions permitted imputed malice could have been raised on direct appeal.

The court held that the constitutional provisions governing bail must be harmonized: noncapital defendants may be denied bail only under the specified exceptions for violent, sexual-assault, or threatening felony offenses.

The court held that a juvenile court may terminate parental rights only after finding both that the child is likely to be adopted and that an additional statutory basis for termination exists, subject to applicable exceptions.

The court held that the Coastal Commission lacked appellate jurisdiction over Shear’s permit application under either of the two grounds it asserted. Because the jurisdictional questions turned on interpreting enacted law and the LCP rather than disputed facts, the court independently interpreted them; it found the…

On automatic appeal, the court affirmed both defendants’ convictions and Bertsch’s death judgment, but reversed Hronis’s sentence, including his death judgment, in light of subsequent changes in the law governing competency to represent oneself; it also vacated any remaining restitution-fine balances for both…