Legal News

Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[05/09] California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (Walker)
Vehicle Code section 14602.6(a)(1) provides only discretionary authority to impound and therefore the California Highway Patrol cannot be held liable under Government Code section 815.6 for failing to perform a mandatory duty.

[05/09] U.S. v. Day
A conviction for, inter alia, mail and wire fraud is affirmed in part over claims over error regarding: 1) the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony for failing to meet the requirements under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert; 2) the exclusion of testimony by a witness for failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)(ii); 3) an increase in the sentencing level based on a determination that defendant had caused a loss greater than the ones included in the indictment; 4) an obstruction of justice sentence enhancement; 5) a sentence enhancement for abuse of trust; and 6) a sentence enhancement based on the number of victims involved. However, decisions denying the government's requests for forfeiture and a money judgment are reversed as: 1) criminal forfeiture is available for general mail and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1341 and 1343, and not only for mail and wire fraud affecting financial institutions; and 2) money judgments are appropriate in the criminal forfeiture context.

[05/09] US v. Martinez
In a sentencing proceeding wherein the district court applied a four-level enhancement to defendant's base offense level after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant had used or possessed a firearm in connection with another felony offense, judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court applied the correct standard of proof to the facts supporting the enhancement; 2) the sentence imposed was reasonable; and 3) the doctrine of constitutional avoidance did not apply to invalidate the sentence imposed.

[05/09] US v. Regalado
Sentence for conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base is remanded where: 1) in light of the holding in Kimbrough, it was unclear whether the district court would have imposed a non-Guidelines sentence had it been aware of the Guidelines' advisory nature, and that it had the discretion to deviate from the Guidelines; and 2) the absence of that information precluded a review for plain error.

[05/08] U.S. v. Friday
In a prosecution against a member of a Native American tribe for shooting an eagle without a permit in contravention of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), dismissal of the indictment based on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge is reversed and remanded for trial where the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government's compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle.

[05/08] People v. Varghese
Conviction for first-degree murder with a true finding of using a deadly weapon is affirmed over defendant's claims that the trial court erred in: 1) denying his request to conduct confidential DNA testing on what remained of a bloodstain found at the murder scene, which earlier testing indicated was his blood; and 2) refusing to suppress evidence found on a computer which was allegedly procured by defective search warrants.

[05/08] U.S. v. Brooks
In a drug related prosecution, judgment is vacated and remanded in part where the court erred in declining a request that it give instructions requiring the jury to make an essential threshold determination of drug quantity and establish the penalty range for each individual conspiracy defendant, which resulted in a defendant receiving a sentence in excess of the maximum established by section 841(b)(1)(c). The judgment is also affirmed in part where: 1) the court is allowed to find individualized drug quantities by a preponderance of the evidence as part of its calculation of an advisory Guidelines range; 2) the court is entitled to consider conduct underlying an acquitted charge during sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence; 3) a prosecution witness is allowed to testify during sentencing to clarify his testimony relating to drug quantities; and 4) the court did not improperly attribute criminal history points to the defendants.

[05/08] US v. Harris
Conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erred by denying a motion to suppress a pistol found by a police officer under the floor mat in the passenger's compartment of a taxicab in which he was riding; and 2) his statements made to federal ATF agents while being held in state custody on state criminal charges (but before he was charged in the instant case) were inadmissible for violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

More...

Family Law

[05/09] Baran v. Beaty
In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return.

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

[04/25] State of California Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt
In a case involving whether the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) complied with an order requiring it to provide for the review of all foster care cases open on or after March 3, 2003, for benefits eligibility under a prior case's construction of a statute determining eligibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program, denial of motions to enforce the judgment is reversed in part insofar as the court failed to address a request to authorize discovery regarding the agencies' compliance. Grant of agencies' motion for relief from judgment as of the date of the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the agencies to implement the DRA as Congress intended.

[04/23] State Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Superior Court (D.P.)
The juvenile court has the authority to order a dependent child returned to the home of designated prospective adoptive parents when, after a hearing held to determine whether the removal of a child from the home of prospective adoptive parents is in the minors' best interest, the court is of the opinion that an emergency removal occurring some three months earlier was in the minors' best interests but events which occurred since the removal justify returning the minors to the designated prospective adoptive parents' home. Furthermore, section 361.4 of Welf. & Inst. Code does not limit the juvenile court's discretion to order a minor returned to prospective adoptive parents after a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26(n).

[04/22] Edwards v. Edwards
In a child support case considering the applicability of the statutory support guideline to a competent adult child who has moved away to college, the court of appeals concludes that where neither parent retains "primary physical responsibility" under Family Code section 4055 subdivision (b)(1)(D) of an adult child for any percentage of time, the guideline formula, by its terms, is inapplicable.

[04/04] In re Valerie W.
An order terminating parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where the trial court's finding of adoptability was not supported by substantial evidence.

More...