California Legal Brief

AI-Generated Practitioner Briefs of California Appellate Opinions

conspiracy

6 opinions tagged “conspiracy”

P. v. Hsiung 5/12/26 CA1/5

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere has a constitutional right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that his conduct was legally justified under the necessity defense, even though the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant relied on legal opinions advising that his actions were lawful.

Fisher v. Fisher 2/26/26 CA4/1

The Rule of Fisher v. Fisher is that intentional infliction of emotional distress can be the legal cause of a wrongful death when the tortious conduct is a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress that leads to the victim's death, under the broader scope of liability standard applicable to intentional torts rather than the narrower "scope of risk" standard used for negligence.

P. v. Gomez 1/28/26 CA4/1

The Rule of People v. Gomez is that use of animal imagery in criminal proceedings does not violate the Racial Justice Act when the animal reference is benign, endearing, and used solely to explain legal concepts rather than to dehumanize or exhibit racial bias, under circumstances where an objective observer would understand the comparison relates to the state of evidence rather than character traits.

P. v. Hsiung 4/30/26 CA1/5

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes may present a mistake of law defense based on good faith reliance on legal advice about the necessity defense, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant obtained legal opinions from qualified professionals regarding the lawfulness of his conduct and relied on those opinions in good faith.

P. v. Rifat 5/27/26 CA4/2

The Rule of The People v. Murray Rifat is that a petition to seal arrest records under Penal Code section 851.91 must be denied when there is a causal nexus between the arrest and a subsequent conviction, under circumstances where the defendant pleaded guilty to charges in a separate case filed as part of a plea agreement to dismiss the original charges and the conduct underlying both cases occurred during overlapping time periods.

P. v. Hsiung 5/27/26 CA1/5

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as trespass with intent to interfere with business and conspiracy must be permitted to present evidence of his good faith mistake of law defense based on his belief that necessity doctrine justified his conduct, even when the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where legal experts advised the defendant that his trespass was lawful under necessity principles.