David Eagleson

The case involved whether a homeowner's insurance policy covered damages awarded against a man who sexually molested a five-year-old girl on multiple occasions. The insurer sought declaratory relief that it had no duty to indemnify under the policy's exclusion for intentional acts and Insurance Code section 533. The California Supreme Court held that the insurer was not required to pay the judgment because section 533 precludes coverage for willful acts, and the sexual molestation of a child is willful as a matter of law regardless of the molester's claimed intent not to harm the child. The court reasoned that the insured's admissions and the nature of the acts established intentional misconduct, consistent with precedents from this and other states.

criminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved Hydrotech, a New York corporation without a California contractor's license, which contracted to design and build a wave pool in California for Oasis Waterpark and later sued for unpaid retainage amounts plus fraud after the project was completed. The trial court dismissed most claims on demurrer for failure to allege proper licensing under Business and Professions Code section 7031, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in part while allowing the fraud claim to proceed. The Supreme Court of California held that section 7031 strictly bars recovery of compensation for unlicensed contracting work with no exceptions for isolated transactions, nonresidents, or exceptional circumstances, and that the statute also precludes a fraud claim where the alleged deceit is a false promise to pay and damages are measured by the value of the work performed. The court's reasoning centered on the legislative intent to deter unlicensed contractors by denying them access to courts for compensation, regardless of the form of the action or equitable considerations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a challenge to Measure H, a voter initiative adopted by the City of Walnut Creek that imposed a building moratorium triggered when traffic volume-to-capacity ratios on specified roads exceeded 0.85. Plaintiffs argued that the measure was invalid as a zoning ordinance inconsistent with the city's existing general plan, which was growth-oriented and anticipated increased development and congestion. The California Supreme Court held that Measure H did not amend the general plan and was therefore invalid under the state Planning and Zoning Law, which requires all zoning ordinances to be consistent with the adopted general plan. The court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a writ directing the city to cease enforcing the measure.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved defendant Bronte Lament Wright, who was convicted of first-degree murder, rape, attempted robbery, and burglary of 76-year-old Patricia Hunter, along with related enhancements and three special circumstances that made the murder eligible for the death penalty. The jury imposed a death sentence, which the California Supreme Court initially affirmed as to guilt but reversed as to penalty before granting rehearing. On rehearing, the court affirmed the judgment in full, concluding that the evidence—including the defendant's confession, palm prints at the scene, witness identifications, and prior criminal history—supported the convictions and special circumstances, and that any errors in the admission of penalty-phase evidence or jury instructions were not prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Curl v. Superior Court, the defendant faced a capital murder charge with a prior-murder special circumstance based on a 1977 guilty plea; he sought to strike that allegation pretrial by collaterally attacking the prior conviction as involuntary due to drug influence and inadequate Boykin-Tahl advisements. The California Supreme Court held that such a challenge is permitted via a pretrial motion to strike, triggering an evidentiary hearing under the procedures from People v. Coffey and People v. Sumstine. The court further ruled that the defendant bears the burden of proving the prior conviction's constitutional invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the trial court properly denied the motion here because the available testimony and records supported the plea’s validity. This outcome rested on the statutory scheme for special circumstances and the allocation of proof in collateral attacks on priors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jesse Edward Gonzalez, who was convicted of first-degree murder of a deputy sheriff and assault on another officer during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, where he used a shotgun. The jury found a special circumstance that he intentionally killed a peace officer in the performance of duty, leading to a death sentence after penalty phase proceedings. The California Supreme Court affirmed the guilt and penalty judgments, denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition, and granted the People's petition for a writ of mandate to overturn a postjudgment discovery order related to informant testimony.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a bank that held guaranties secured by a deed of trust on real property and that set off funds from the guarantors' deposit accounts to reduce a debt exceeding $1 million without first foreclosing on the security. After the setoff, the bank reconveyed the deed of trust and sued to recover the remaining balance on the guaranties. The California Supreme Court held that the bank's suit on the debt was not barred by Code of Civil Procedure section 726, which generally requires a secured creditor to proceed against the security before pursuing the underlying obligation. The court reasoned that the improper setoff did not result in a complete waiver of the debt because the bank had reconveyed the security and the debtors had not demanded return of the offset funds.

procedureproperty

The case concerned whether the California Public Utilities Commission had authority to determine a regulated water utility's property interests in easements when deciding a rate increase application, and whether the commission's construction of 1951 deeds was supported by evidence. The court held that the commission acted within its rate-making powers by interpreting the deeds to find that the utility held an extensive easement over the adjacent watershed parcel, thereby denying part of the requested rate increase for leasing additional wells. The commission's actions were limited to construing written instruments for factual purposes relevant to rates rather than adjudicating title or enforcing property rights, and it acknowledged it would be bound by any contrary court ruling in a quiet title action. Because the utility did not claim a constitutional violation and evidence supported the commission's deed interpretation, the court affirmed the decision under the limited review standards of the Public Utilities Code.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved two voter-approved 1988 California initiative statutes, Propositions 68 and 73, both of which amended the Political Reform Act to regulate campaign contributions and spending. Proposition 73 received more affirmative votes than Proposition 68. The California Supreme Court held that under article II, section 10(b) of the state constitution, when two or more competing initiatives create comprehensive regulatory schemes on the same subject, only the provisions of the measure receiving the highest number of votes become effective. The court reasoned that section 10(b) mandates this result to avoid enforcing a hybrid regulatory scheme that mixes provisions from different ballot measures without evidence that voters intended or understood such a combination.

elections

The case involved defendant Charles Edward Whitt, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon after shooting at one victim during a robbery attempt and fatally shooting a store clerk during another robbery in 1980; he had also pled guilty to firearm possession by an ex-felon, and the jury found a robbery-murder special circumstance true before imposing the death penalty. Following an earlier reversal of the special circumstance and death judgment due to improper jury instructions on intent to kill, retrials on those issues again resulted in a death sentence. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court examined claims regarding jury instructions on life without parole and executive clemency, substitution of counsel, aggravating and mitigating evidence, and other procedural issues, and concluded there was no prejudicial error warranting reversal. The court therefore affirmed the convictions, special circumstance finding, and death judgment in their entirety.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a newspaper's refusal to comply with a civil subpoena seeking unpublished photographs of a car accident taken by its staff in a personal injury product liability action. The California Supreme Court held that the state's newspersons' shield law provides absolute immunity from contempt for refusing to disclose unpublished information, regardless of whether it was obtained in confidence and without any balancing of the requesting party's need in civil litigation. The court reasoned that the shield law's plain language creates this protection in civil cases, distinguishing it from criminal proceedings where constitutional fair trial rights may override it, while allowing non-contempt sanctions and requiring that writ review occur only after a contempt judgment. The court also addressed procedural aspects of when and how the immunity could be asserted.

free speechprocedure

In this case, defendant Donald Miller was convicted by a jury of four counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder, with multiple-murder special circumstances found true, arising from a series of attacks on individuals near gay bars in West Hollywood between 1980 and 1981. He received death sentences on the murder convictions under California's 1978 death penalty law, along with determinate terms for the attempted murders, and appealed the judgment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, special circumstances, and death sentences in full, after reviewing the guilt and penalty phases, evidentiary issues, and procedural claims raised on automatic appeal.

criminal law

This case involved the retrial of Michael Dee Mattson, who was convicted of two first-degree murders with special circumstances (including rape and kidnapping of victims Cheryl G. and Adele C.), along with related counts of kidnapping, rape, and other sexual offenses against multiple victims, resulting in a death sentence. After an earlier reversal by the California Supreme Court due to improperly obtained confessions under state constitutional protections, a new suppression hearing at retrial admitted the confessions based on additional evidence, leading to the jury's guilt and penalty verdicts. On automatic appeal, the defendant raised claims including violation of the right to a representative jury cross-section, improper relitigation and admission of the confessions, double jeopardy, and various evidentiary and instructional errors. The court rejected all contentions as lacking merit and affirmed the convictions and death judgment in full, finding the trial court's rulings on admissibility and other issues were proper under the circumstances presented.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether newspaper reporters could refuse to testify about their eyewitness observations of a public police search and seizure during a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a misdemeanor brass knuckles possession prosecution. The California Supreme Court held that the state shield law protects a journalist's unpublished information even without a showing of confidentiality, including nonconfidential observations in public places, but that protection must give way to a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial when nondisclosure would unduly impair that right. The court reasoned that the shield law's broad text does not limit its scope to confidential sources, yet a balancing of interests favored compelled disclosure here because the reporters' disinterested testimony was needed on the disputed issue of consent to the search.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

In People v. Turner, defendant Thaddaeus Louis Turner was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery after evidence showed he killed Roy Savage during a home invasion that involved multiple stab wounds and theft of various items; the jury found true the special circumstance that the murder occurred in the commission of a robbery and imposed the death penalty. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The court concluded there was no prejudicial error in either the guilt phase or the penalty phase that would require reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of William John Clark for the rape of his former wife, the first-degree murder of David Gawronski by arson, the attempted murders of Ava and Sara Gawronski, and arson, along with special circumstance findings that led to a death sentence. The California Supreme Court reviewed the automatic appeal and found that the special circumstance for murder by means of explosives did not apply because gasoline used to start the fire did not qualify as an explosive under the relevant Penal Code provision. The court also determined that the arson term must be stayed under Penal Code section 654 to prevent multiple punishment for the same conduct underlying the murder. In all other respects, including the remaining special circumstance for murder in the commission of arson and the convictions themselves, the judgment was affirmed.

criminal law

This case concerned whether California must reimburse local governments for the costs of extending mandatory unemployment insurance coverage to their employees under 1978 state legislation (chapter 2/78) enacted to comply with federal unemployment tax amendments. The California Supreme Court held that the state has no reimbursement obligation under article XIII B of the state Constitution because the law did not impose a unique program or higher level of service on local agencies nor require new governmental services to the public. The court reasoned that the obligations failed the standards set in County of Los Angeles v. State of California for mandatory subvention of state-mandated costs. However, the court further concluded that the expenses qualified as federally mandated costs due to federal coercion, exempting them from local taxation and spending limits under article XIII B and related statutes, allowing localities to fund them without reducing other fiscal ceilings.

labor & employmentfederal powertaxes

In People v. Hayes, defendant Louis Victor Hayes was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, robbery, rape, forcible oral copulation, and burglary, along with firearm use enhancements and special circumstances that resulted in a sentence of life without parole. The crimes involved the shooting death of Rigoberto G. and sexual assaults on his wife Marie G. during a home invasion; Marie had been hypnotized hours after the incident to aid a police sketch and recall details, and her post-hypnotic identification of Hayes as the unmasked assailant was admitted at trial. The California Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that under the retroactive rule from People v. Shirley, admission of Marie's post-hypnotic testimony was error requiring reversal. The court further held that on retrial Marie could testify to matters she recalled and related before the hypnosis session. The decision rested on the established prohibition against using hypnotically refreshed testimony that extends beyond pre-hypnosis recollections preserved in police reports.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved proprietors and a manager of a San Francisco adult entertainment theater who were charged with contempt for violating a 1981 injunction issued under the Red Light Abatement Law (Pen. Code, § 11225 et seq.), which prohibited allowing acts of lewdness or prostitution on the premises. The trial court found multiple violations based on on-stage and off-stage conduct over several days and imposed substantial fines and six-month jail terms. The California Supreme Court held that defendants facing contempt charges under section 11229 are entitled to a jury trial under the state constitution because the maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine per violation is equivalent to that for many misdemeanors. The court further ruled that violations may be charged as only one count of contempt per day the nuisance continues and that the prosecution must provide fair notice of the specific statutory basis and penalties when initiating proceedings under the more serious RLAL provisions rather than the general contempt statute. The judgments were annulled on these grounds.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Stoll, multiple defendants were jointly tried and convicted of numerous counts of lewd and lascivious acts against young boys, and two defendants sought to introduce a psychologist's opinion testimony—based on interviews and standardized personality tests like the MMPI—indicating they showed no signs of sexual deviance or abnormality to support a defense that the charged acts did not occur. The California Supreme Court ruled that this expert testimony is admissible as evidence of good character under existing evidentiary rules and is not subject to the Kelly/Frye requirements for proving the reliability of novel scientific techniques. The court reasoned that such opinions have long been considered competent expert testimony when grounded in professionally accepted methods like interviews and standardized tests, with any concerns about cumulativeness or prejudice left to the trial court's discretion under section 352, and that excluding the evidence here was prejudicial error warranting reversal for the affected defendants.

criminal lawprocedure