Carlos R. Moreno

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatory

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.

criminal law

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

criminal law

The case concerned whether a litigant acting as a conservator for a developmentally disabled sibling could recover attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 after successfully challenging a regional center's placement decision, despite having personal nonpecuniary motives in the litigation. The Court of Appeal had denied fees, holding that such personal interests could disqualify a party under the statute's "necessity and financial burden" requirement. The California Supreme Court reversed, concluding that nonfinancial personal motives do not render a litigant ineligible for fees. The court reasoned that section 1021.5's text, history, and purpose focus on encouraging public interest litigation where financial incentives are lacking, without regard to whether the litigant's motives are altruistic or personal. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on fee eligibility and amounts.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved Daniel Lopez, who was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and committed for involuntary mental health treatment as a mentally disordered offender (MDO) under Penal Code section 2962 as a condition of parole. Prior to the end of his parole, the district attorney petitioned under section 2970 to extend the commitment, and Lopez moved to dismiss on the ground that his offense was not among those enumerated in the MDO statute. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, ruling that Lopez's challenge to his original MDO certification was untimely. The California Supreme Court held that a challenge to whether the underlying offense qualifies as an enumerated offense for initial MDO commitment must be brought within the first year of commitment under the statutory scheme. The court reasoned that the MDO Act distinguishes between static criteria (such as the nature of the offense) that must be contested early and dynamic criteria (such as whether the disorder is in remission or poses ongoing danger) that can be raised in later extension proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ruiz v. Podolsky, the California Supreme Court addressed whether an arbitration agreement for medical malpractice claims, signed by a patient pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1295, binds the patient's heirs in a subsequent wrongful death action even though the heirs did not sign the agreement. The patient had signed such an agreement with his orthopedic surgeon that explicitly extended to heirs and wrongful death claims; after the patient died from alleged malpractice, his wife and adult children sued, with the wife conceding arbitration but the children resisting. The trial court and Court of Appeal declined to compel the children to arbitrate, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that all wrongful death claimants are bound by valid section 1295 arbitration agreements when the agreement's language shows intent to bind them. The core reasoning was that section 1295 reflects legislative intent to subject all medical malpractice claims, including independent wrongful death actions, to arbitration to promote its benefits, while balancing the non-derivative nature of wrongful death claims with the statutory framework.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In People v. Cowan, a Kern County jury convicted defendant Robert Wesley Cowan of the first-degree murders of Clifford and Alma Merck, finding true special circumstance allegations of multiple murder and murder during the commission of robbery and burglary; the jury also found a principal was armed with a firearm and that the defendant had a prior serious felony conviction, but could not reach a verdict on a third murder count involving Jewell Russell. At the penalty phase, the jury imposed a death sentence for Alma Merck's murder and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for Clifford Merck's murder. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to modify the verdict and imposed the sentences along with enhancements. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full.

criminal law

In this case, Alfredo Reyes Valdez, who had been sentenced to death for first-degree murder during a robbery, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence of childhood abuse at the penalty phase. The California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause, appointed a referee to hold an evidentiary hearing on the claims, and reviewed the referee's findings after the hearing. The court adopted the referee's report in full and denied the petition. The core reasoning was that substantial evidence showed counsel had properly interviewed the relevant witnesses and petitioner himself, who denied any abuse, and that petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice from the one identified deficiency in counsel's performance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by property owner Ford Greene to a storm drainage fee election conducted by the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 218. The ballots used in the election included voters' names, addresses, and required signatures, leading Greene to argue that they violated ballot secrecy protections. The Court of Appeal overturned the election results, finding that the district's procedures did not adequately ensure secrecy as required by article II, section 7. The California Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that article XIII D, section 6 incorporates limited secrecy measures but does not fully apply the ballot secrecy requirements of article II, and that the district's procedures satisfied the constitutional standards.

electionstaxesproperty

This case involved an employee who sued his former employer for age discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act after being terminated, with the dispute subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement that included a one-year deadline to request arbitration. The arbitrator ruled the claim was time-barred, but the trial court vacated the award on the grounds that the arbitrator had misapplied the tolling provision in Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.12. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that legal error by an arbitrator is generally not grounds to vacate an award. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, concluding that under the circumstances of a mandatory employment arbitration agreement covering an unwaivable statutory claim, a clear legal error that deprives the employee of a hearing on the merits permits judicial vacatur of the award. The Court also rejected the employee's argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable due to language limiting access to administrative remedies.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to a Los Angeles ordinance that banned soliciting and immediately receiving funds at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), claiming it violated the free speech protections of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court was asked by the Ninth Circuit to determine whether LAX is a public forum under the state constitution and whether the ordinance violates it. The court concluded that the ordinance constitutes a valid time, place, and manner restriction on expressive activities by prohibiting the immediate receipt of funds, without needing to resolve the public forum question. This holding was based on the principle that such a reasonable restriction is permissible regardless of the forum status of the property.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

In Steiner v. Thexton, a real estate developer sought specific performance of a 2003 agreement to purchase a 10-acre parcel from the owner for $500,000 after obtaining county approvals for a split and development, while retaining sole discretion to cancel the deal at any time. The trial court and Court of Appeal held the agreement was an unenforceable option unsupported by consideration because the buyer had no obligation to proceed and paid nothing upfront for the seller's commitment. The California Supreme Court reversed, concluding the agreement constituted an option but that the buyer's substantial part performance—pursuing and funding the approvals at his expense—provided sufficient consideration to make the option irrevocable for the three-year term.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Jonathan Daniel D'Arcy, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder of Karen Laborde with true findings on special circumstances of intentional torture and murder during the commission of mayhem. After the penalty-phase jury deadlocked, a second jury imposed a death sentence following retrial, and the trial court denied post-trial motions before entering judgment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, finding no error in the admission of evidence, jury instructions on aggravating and mitigating factors, or the overall penalty determination process.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved employees who sought to use their employer's paid sick leave policy, which compensated for an unlimited number of days off due to an employee's own illness under a collective bargaining agreement, to care for ill family members as permitted by Labor Code section 233. The employers denied such use, leading to a lawsuit claiming violation of the statute. The California Supreme Court held that section 233 does not apply to paid sick leave policies providing for an uncapped number of compensated days off. The core reasoning was that the statute applies only to policies where sick leave accrues in a measurable or banked amount over time, whereas the policy here had no such accrual or cap, functioning instead as compensation for absences without a vested bank of days.

labor & employment

The case concerned the constitutionality of Proposition 83's amendments to California's Sexually Violent Predators Act, which shifted SVP commitments from two-year renewable terms (with the state bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) to indefinite commitments (with the committed individual bearing the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she no longer qualifies as an SVP). Defendant McKee, committed under the new scheme after prior qualifying convictions, challenged the law on due process, ex post facto, and equal protection grounds. The court rejected the due process and ex post facto claims, finding the indefinite commitment scheme did not violate those protections. On equal protection, the court held that the state had not justified treating SVPs differently from other civilly committed ex-felons such as mentally disordered offenders, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved defendant Marilyn Kaye Freeman, who was convicted of solicitation to commit kidnapping, residential burglary, stalking, and related misdemeanor offenses after she harassed the foster parents of her daughter in an attempt to monitor and regain custody of the child. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the trial judge's failure to recuse himself violated the defendant's due process rights due to the appearance of bias stemming from his friendship with another judge whom the defendant had been accused of stalking. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, concluding that the facts did not present the extreme circumstances required for a due process violation under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., which requires a showing that the probability of actual bias is too high to be tolerable rather than mere appearance of bias. The court emphasized that state disqualification statutes, not the federal Constitution, generally address issues of apparent bias, and remanded for further proceedings including on an ineffective assistance claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Martinez, the defendant was convicted by a jury of the rape, robbery, and murder of Sophia Castro Torres, along with assaults, kidnappings, and related offenses against three other women, with special circumstances and weapon use findings that led to a death sentence. The California Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal, addressing issues including the admissibility of the defendant's statements to police under Miranda standards for invoking the right to counsel or silence, as well as jury instructions on consent. The court affirmed the convictions and death judgment in full, concluding that any statements were properly obtained and that the trial proceedings complied with legal requirements.

criminal lawprocedure