This case involves capital defendant David Leslie Murtishaw, who was convicted in 1978 of three counts of first-degree murder with a multiple-murder special circumstance and sentenced to death under the 1977 death penalty law. Following earlier state appeals that affirmed the guilt phase but reversed or upheld penalty judgments, and a Ninth Circuit decision reversing the death sentence via habeas corpus, a new penalty retrial again produced a death verdict. On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The court rejected challenges to the penalty-phase jury instructions on aggravating and mitigating factors, the handling of prior verdicts, and related procedural claims, reasoning that the instructions complied with the 1977 law and that no prejudicial error occurred.
The case concerned whether a retailer violated the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting and recording a customer's ZIP Code during a credit card purchase, then using that information along with the customer's name to obtain her address for marketing purposes. Plaintiff Jessica Pineda sued Williams-Sonoma after a cashier asked for her ZIP Code, which she provided believing it was required, and the company later used the data to identify her home address. The California Supreme Court held that a ZIP Code qualifies as personal identification information under the statute, so requesting and recording it without more violates the Act. The Court reached this conclusion based on the statute's plain language, its consumer-protection purpose, and its legislative history, reversing the Court of Appeal's contrary ruling that had relied on an earlier appellate decision.
The case involved defendant Richard Lonnie Booker, who was convicted by a jury of the first-degree murders of three victims (Tricia Powalka, Amanda Elliot, and Corina Candara), arson, and the attempted murder of Eric S., along with special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and murder during the commission of rape and a lewd act on a child under 14, plus findings of personal use of a handgun and knife. The jury returned death verdicts on each murder count, and the trial court denied modification and imposed the death sentence along with other terms. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full after reviewing the prosecution evidence of the events on August 9-10, 1995, the defense claims, jury instructions, and penalty phase proceedings, concluding there was no reversible error.
The case concerned whether a superior court order requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to comply with subpoenas issued by the City of Dana Point under Government Code section 37104 was appealable. The City had issued the subpoenas to investigate whether the dispensaries were operating in compliance with applicable law, and after partial responses and objections, the trial court ordered full compliance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the dispensaries' appeals as nonappealable, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that such compliance orders are appealable as final judgments in special proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1. The core reasoning was that the order finally determined the parties' rights regarding the subpoenas with nothing left but enforcement, consistent with precedents on administrative subpoenas and the policies of the final judgment rule.
The case concerned an employee who resigned from Bank of America and received final wages four days late; he sued on behalf of a class seeking only waiting-time penalties under Labor Code section 203 for the delay, plus restitution of those penalties under the Unfair Competition Law. The trial court and Court of Appeal held that a one-year statute of limitations barred the claim when only penalties (not unpaid wages) were sought, and that the penalties could not be recovered as UCL restitution. The Supreme Court reversed on the first issue and affirmed on the second, ruling that Labor Code section 203(b) imposes a single limitations period—the longer period applicable to wage claims—for all actions to recover section 203 penalties, whether or not unpaid wages are also sought. It further held that section 203 penalties are not recoverable as restitution under the UCL because employees lack an ownership interest in the penalty funds. The court reached these conclusions through straightforward interpretation of the statutory text in section 203(b) and established UCL restitution principles.
The case involved Timothy Russell, who was convicted by a jury of murdering two Riverside County sheriff's deputies with a rifle during the performance of their duties, along with related enhancements and special circumstances including multiple murders and killings of peace officers. After the first penalty phase ended in a mistrial, a retrial jury returned a verdict of death, which the trial court imposed along with concurrent firearm sentences. On automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, the judgment was affirmed, with the court upholding the convictions and penalty based on the sufficiency of the evidence from the guilt and penalty phases and the jury's findings on aggravating factors.
