Mathew Tobriner

The case concerned a landlord's policy of refusing to rent any apartments in a complex to families with minor children and seeking to evict such a family. The California Supreme Court ruled that the policy violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court explained that the Act bars arbitrary class-based discrimination by business establishments, extending beyond the specifically listed categories such as race or religion to include families with children, and that landlords may regulate individual conduct but may not exclude entire classes to avoid perceived group characteristics.

civil rightsproperty

The case involved defendant Marcelino Ramos, who was convicted of two counts of robbery, one count of first-degree murder, and one count of attempted murder arising from a 1979 armed robbery and shooting at a Taco Bell restaurant in Santa Ana, California. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery, triggering a penalty phase trial under the 1978 Briggs Initiative death penalty law, after which the jury returned a verdict of death. On automatic appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the guilt convictions but reversed the death judgment. The core reasoning was that the statute's required "Briggs Instruction" to the penalty jury regarding the Governor's power to commute a sentence of life without parole violated due process because it was misleading and constituted a half-truth that could improperly influence the jury's decision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned California's implied consent law (Vehicle Code section 13353), which mandates a six-month driver's license suspension for individuals lawfully arrested for drunk driving who refuse to submit to one of three chemical tests after being informed of their rights. Plaintiff Ernesto Hernandez, arrested on New Year's Eve 1977 after failing field sobriety tests, refused all tests and challenged the statute's constitutionality, arguing that the right to drive is a fundamental right under the California Constitution requiring strict scrutiny and that less restrictive alternatives should apply. The Supreme Court of California upheld the law, holding that driving is not a fundamental constitutional right akin to free speech or religion and is subject to broad legislative regulation under the state's police power. The court reasoned that the statute reasonably relates to highway safety and that no authority supported applying strict scrutiny or second-guessing the Legislature's policy choices in this area.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a defendant in a California criminal prosecution has a right under the state constitution to the assistance of counsel at a preindictment lineup. The Supreme Court of California held that the right extends to preindictment lineups, reversing the defendant's robbery conviction because he was denied counsel at such a lineup where a witness identified him, and remanding for a determination whether the identification had an independent untainted basis; all other convictions were affirmed. The court reasoned that the well-recognized dangers of unreliable eyewitness identification and improper suggestion at lineups apply equally before and after indictment, so the presence of counsel to observe irregularities and assist cross-examination is required in both settings under the California Constitution, even though federal law limits the right to postindictment lineups.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Highland Ranch, an agricultural employer, challenging an order by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) that found the company committed unfair labor practices by failing to provide information or bargain with the United Farm Workers union after the union's apparent victory in a representation election but before formal certification. The ALRB had relied on federal precedents under the National Labor Relations Act holding that employers act at their peril by making unilateral changes during election challenges. Highland argued that a provision in the state Agricultural Labor Relations Act (Labor Code section 1153, subdivision (f)) barred bargaining with an uncertified union under any circumstances. The California Supreme Court upheld the unfair labor practice finding on narrower grounds, concluding that Highland could entertain no reasonable doubt about the union's imminent certification, which was a purely ministerial act, and thus could not invoke the statute to avoid its bargaining obligation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant David Leslie Murtishaw, who admitted shooting four college students in the Mojave Desert in 1978, killing three and injuring one, after which a jury convicted him of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to commit murder, found the multiple-murder special circumstance, and imposed the death penalty. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence on automatic appeal, holding that substantial evidence supported a finding of premeditated murder, that various trial errors (including incomplete jury instructions on malice and certain prosecutorial comments) were not prejudicial given the strength of the evidence, and that the defendant had waived Miranda and self-incrimination claims. The court further reasoned that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness at the penalty phase was improperly admitted but did not require reversal, while announcing prospective rules on jury discovery and unreasonable self-defense instructions.

criminal lawprocedure