California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Wilmot is that a trial court commits prejudicial error when it modifies a CALCRIM jury instruction to require that a killing be "unintentional" for voluntary manslaughter, under circumstances where the modification incorrectly suggests that an intentional killing in the heat of passion cannot qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

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.

The Rule of People v. Mijares is that a defendant's attack remains the but-for cause and proximate cause of death even when the victim suffers from serious preexisting medical conditions, under circumstances where the coroner testifies that the defendant's assault caused the death and the victim would have survived at least several more years absent the attack.

The Rule of People v. Berch is that felony false imprisonment based on menace does not require a threat to inflict force that is greater than necessary to effectuate restraint on a person's liberty, under circumstances where menace involves a threat to inflict injury upon another person.

The Rule of People v. Moss is that a trial court may reimpose an upper term sentence during Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing without additional jury findings or defendant stipulation to aggravating factors, under circumstances where the defendant was originally sentenced to an upper term.

The Rule of People v. Lopez is that defendants who petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 are not categorically ineligible for relief merely because they could have challenged allegedly ambiguous jury instructions on direct appeal from their original conviction, under circumstances where the petitioner alleges they were convicted under a now-invalid theory of imputed malice due to instructional ambiguity.

The Rule of Gonzalez v. Community Mortuary is that the affirmative defense of impracticability of performance is an equitable defense that must be decided by a judge, not a jury, under circumstances where a party seeks excuse from contract performance due to events making performance impracticable through no fault of their own.

The Rule of People v. Deen is that a trial court must conduct an objective evaluation of whether a prospective juror's circumstances would prevent or substantially interfere with their ability to act with entire impartiality, even when the juror states they can be fair, under circumstances where a panelist has personal relationships with victims or witnesses, has received detailed case information from prospective witnesses, and expresses concerns about their ability to be impartial.

The Rule of People v. Player is that a jury's not-true finding on a personal firearm use enhancement does not preclude a resentencing court from finding the defendant was the actual killer in a Penal Code section 1172.6 proceeding, under circumstances where the jury convicted the defendant of murder despite the not-true weapon enhancement finding.

The Rule of People v. Newt is that "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under Penal Code section 32310(a) requires evidence beyond mere possession, specifically evidence as to the provenance of the magazine (such as that defendant bought or received it after January 1, 2000, from someone who manufactured, imported, kept for sale, offered for sale, gave, or lent it), under circumstances where the prosecution seeks a felony conviction for "receiving" rather than a misdemeanor conviction for "possessing" under subdivision (c).

The Rule of People v. Chang is that imperfect self-defense is unavailable when a defendant's belief in the need for self-defense is based entirely on delusion without any objective correlate that could plausibly relate to a reasonable need for self-defense, under circumstances where the defendant shoots at peace officers based solely on delusional beliefs about CIA persecution without any objective threatening conduct by the officers.

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a defendant's handwritten note found at a crime scene stating he found victims "having sex" and that this "fills me with rage" is admissible as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's state of mind for provocation defense, under circumstances where the statement about what defendant observed is not hearsay when offered to show defendant's belief rather than truth of the observation, and the statement about defendant's emotional reaction is admissible hearsay under Evidence Code section 1250's state-of-mind exception.

The Rule of People v. Dunn is that a trial court must give CALCRIM No.

The Rule of People v. Valencia is that warrantless entry into a home during hot pursuit of a fleeing felon is justified by exigent circumstances when officers are pursuing a suspect who committed a dangerous felony and poses ongoing risks to public safety, and once lawfully inside, police need not obtain a warrant to continue addressing an evolving standoff situation, under circumstances involving a high-speed chase ending at the suspect's residence followed by barricading and armed resistance.

The Rule of People v. Uceda is that a trial court must instruct sua sponte on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm (Penal Code § 246.3, subd.

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.

The Rule of Jogani v. Jogani is that an expert's undisclosed opinion regarding lost profits cannot be admitted at trial without prior disclosure, under circumstances where the opinion concerns a specific damages calculation ($1.98 billion in alleged lost investment profits) that was never disclosed in discovery.

The Rule of *People v. Alston* is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, a trial court must expressly explain its reasons on the record when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge, including making findings on whether presumptively invalid reasons were rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, under circumstances where the prosecutor's stated reasons for the challenge include distrust of law enforcement by a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.

The Rule of Navellier v. Putnam is that parties to an appeal must promptly notify the appellate court of any bankruptcy filing that "could cause or impose a stay" of proceedings, even if they believe the stay does not apply, under Local Rule 21's mandatory disclosure requirements.

The Rule of People v. Heaps is that ex parte communications with a deliberating jury concerning a juror's ability to deliberate require reversal unless the prosecution proves harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, under circumstances where the trial court fails to notify counsel of the jury's note raising competency concerns and the record does not establish how the jury resolved those concerns.

The Rule of Navellier v. Putnam is that appellate counsel must promptly notify the court of any party's bankruptcy that could potentially cause a stay under Local Rule 21, regardless of counsel's belief about whether the stay actually applies, under circumstances where the attorney knows about the bankruptcy filing.

The Rule of People v. Aguilar is that a prosecutor's peremptory challenge based on alleged "juror confusion" is presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, subdivision (g)(1)(C), and requires the trial court to confirm that the asserted confused behavior actually occurred based on the court's own observations, under circumstances where the prospective juror is perceived as a member of a protected group and gives clear, consistent answers regarding the legal concept in question.

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.

The Rule of Higginson is that dismissal of a CLRA claim for failure to file a concurrent venue affidavit must be without prejudice (with leave to amend), not with prejudice, under Civil Code section 1780(d), and that unremedied discovery misuse that deprives a party of material evidence required for trial warrants a new trial and monetary sanctions, under circumstances where a party falsely verifies that responsive documents "never existed" and the court's remedial jury instruction becomes ineffective due to evidentiary exclusions.

The Rule of People v. Riggs is that an attorney's temporary administrative suspension from the State Bar for trust account reporting violations does not per se constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, under circumstances where the attorney was suspended for administrative noncompliance rather than resignation with disciplinary charges pending.

The Rule of People v. Espiritu is that when a trial court fails to make a meaningful inquiry into whether proffered reasons for exercising peremptory challenges fall into presumptively invalid categories under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, the defendant's initial objection under the statute preserves appellate review of that procedural failure, under circumstances where defense counsel objected to a peremptory challenge but did not specifically identify the potential presumptive invalidity below.

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.