Roger J. Traynor

The case involved a habeas corpus petition challenging a conviction under Penal Code section 415 for disturbing the peace, based on an incident where the petitioner, an attorney and pilot, dumped a bucket of gravel on an airport board president's desk during a public meeting to protest runway conditions. The court granted the writ after finding that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. It construed the law to apply only to willful and malicious conduct that is violent, endangers public safety or order, or creates a clear and present danger of violence, thereby avoiding conflicts with First Amendment protections. The decision addressed trial evidence and the burden of proof in habeas proceedings to determine that the conviction could not stand under the narrowed interpretation.

criminal lawfree speech

This case involved a dispute between neighboring landowners over a road on plaintiff Taormino's property that defendant Denny and his predecessors had used. Plaintiff sued to quiet title and enjoin defendant's use, claiming no easement existed by prescription or implied dedication to the public. After an initial judgment for plaintiff, the trial court reopened proceedings on defendant's motion for new trial, took additional evidence, and modified the judgment to award defendant a prescriptive easement limited to farming-related use of the road while requiring shared maintenance costs. On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure sections 660 and 662 to modify the judgment and that evidence supported a finding of adverse use sufficient for a prescriptive easement.

propertyprocedure

Plaintiff Blackmon sued defendants Hale, Lee, and two banks to recover $23,500 he had entrusted to attorney Adams for a potential purchase of a Nevada note and mortgage, after Adams misappropriated the funds from a trust account. The trial court entered judgment for all defendants except Adams (who defaulted). The court affirmed the banks' judgment because the check was deposited in the intended trust account and properly endorsed to reach its destination without injury to the plaintiff. It reversed the judgment for Hale and Lee, ruling that as co-trustees of the ongoing Adams, Hale, and Lee Trust Account they remained liable to account for the funds even after partnership dissolution and Lee's withdrawal, and had not shown they were free of responsibility for the unaccounted balance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the membership and control of Basic Economic Education, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation, between two former directors who claimed membership as incorporators and the current board of directors. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief to establish their membership and invalidate certain board actions, while the defendants cross-complained to affirm the board's authority. The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that under Corporations Code section 9603, the directors constituted the members of the corporation since neither the articles nor bylaws provided for members. The court reasoned that section 9603 specifically governs nonprofit corporations without designated members, making the directors the members for statutory purposes, and rejected arguments that section 104 on incorporators as members should override it.

business & regulatory

The case concerned a post-divorce motion to modify an interlocutory decree that required the husband to indemnify the wife for all pre-1964 tax liabilities. After the decree, the husband received a federal tax assessment of about $22,000 on income earned by a New Zealand corporation in the wife's name during the marriage; he sought relief on grounds of extrinsic fraud or mutual mistake. The trial court struck the tax provision from the decree, finding the parties had not intended the husband to bear U.S. taxes on that foreign income. The California Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the mistake was intrinsic rather than extrinsic, that the parties had a full opportunity to investigate the tax consequences of known assets, and that the strong policy favoring finality of judgments barred modification.

family lawproceduretaxesproperty

The case involved a defendant charged with assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer, battery on a peace officer, and assault with intent to murder after a struggle with responding officers during a domestic disturbance call. A jury convicted the defendant on the first and third counts, and the trial court imposed sentence only on the assault with intent to murder count. On appeal, the defendant challenged the jury instructions regarding lesser included offenses to the assault charge and the relevance of evidence of intoxication to the required mental state. The court analyzed whether assault constitutes a general or specific intent crime, concluding that it requires only general intent to commit an injury, which may be inferred from the defendant's conduct, and that intoxication evidence is thus irrelevant to negating that intent.

criminal law

In this habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner challenged a sentencing court's order making his term for petty theft with a prior conviction (imposed after probation revocation) consecutive to an earlier unrelated narcotics sentence. The court held that Penal Code section 1203.2a, which permits a probationer committed to prison for another offense to request in-absentia revocation and sentencing, does not limit the trial court's authority under section 669 to direct consecutive terms. The core reasoning was that section 669 empowers the court entering the final judgment to determine whether multiple sentences run concurrently or consecutively regardless of offense chronology, while section 1203.2a serves mainly to avoid inadvertent consecutive sentences by ensuring timely court action and notice. The petition was denied.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a minority shareholder of United Savings and Loan Association suing on behalf of herself and other minority shareholders, alleging that the majority shareholders and related defendants breached their fiduciary duties by forming a Delaware holding company, United Financial Corporation, exchanging their shares for its stock, and then making public offerings of the holding company's securities while excluding minority shareholders from participation. The trial court sustained defendants' demurrers and entered judgment for defendants, but the California Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the third amended complaint and stipulated facts adequately stated a cause of action. The court's reasoning centered on the principle that controlling shareholders owe fiduciary obligations to minority shareholders and may not use their control to obtain advantages unavailable to the minority without demonstrating a legitimate business purpose, particularly where the structure enabled the majority to realize substantial gains from public sales while the Association's shares remained illiquid for others.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In People v. Tijerina, defendant appealed judgments from three consolidated criminal cases involving convictions for grand theft and petty theft with a prior felony conviction, as well as an order revoking probation. A court commissioner had acted as a temporary judge in all cases, but only two involved a stipulation by the parties authorizing this; the third lacked such agreement. The court examined challenges to the sufficiency of evidence on the value of stolen goods and lack of consent, the validity of jury trial waivers, the constitutionality of enhanced penalties under Penal Code section 667, and the commissioner's authority to act without stipulation. It upheld the convictions and waivers where stipulations existed or evidence sufficed but addressed the procedural defect in the unstipulated case under the pre-1966 constitutional and rule requirements for judges pro tempore.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Ernest Washington, who was jointly charged with robbery and murder but tried separately after a severance; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and robbery of a department store owner who collected cash from credit customers, and fixed the death penalty. Evidence included witness testimony about the defendant's prior statements planning to rob the victim, his presence and admissions during the crime, post-crime spending, and attempts to fabricate an alibi. The trial court instructed the jury on conspiracy liability for acts in furtherance of an agreement even though conspiracy was not charged in the indictment, and the court addressed jury selection issues regarding automatic opposition to capital punishment. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and judgment in all respects except the death penalty, which it reversed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Ernest Washington, who was jointly charged with robbery and murder after Benjamin Kay was beaten to death during a robbery outside the home of accomplice Mrs. Spencer. A jury convicted Washington of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery and imposed the death penalty, based on evidence including his statements to police, witness testimony about planning and post-crime spending, and his attempts to fabricate an alibi. The California Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence of guilt and no prejudicial error in jury instructions regarding overt acts in a conspiracy or other matters. However, it reversed the death penalty, holding that a prospective juror was improperly excluded under the standards set forth in Witherspoon v. Illinois because his views on capital punishment did not clearly indicate automatic opposition or inability to be impartial.

criminal lawprocedure

People v. Coleman was a California Supreme Court case involving Otis Ronald Coleman's automatic appeal from his conviction for the first-degree murder and robbery of Vincent Sulezich, for which a jury imposed the death penalty. The court reversed the judgment, holding that it was impermissible at the penalty phase to argue that the defendant's failure to confess demonstrated a lack of remorse, as this would force him into an untenable position of either admitting guilt (forfeiting his right to challenge the conviction) or remaining silent (risking the argument being used against him). The decision also addressed related evidentiary issues, such as the admission of prior consistent statements by the accomplice witness James Stevenson, but the reversal centered on the penalty-phase error regarding remorse; a habeas petition challenging a prior conviction was discharged without resolution on the merits.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted in 1963 of assault with intent to commit rape and forcible rape. Following the convictions, the trial court suspended criminal proceedings for sexual psychopathy commitment proceedings, under which the defendant was committed to a state hospital until 1967, when criminal proceedings resumed and he was sentenced. On appeal, the defendant argued that statements obtained in violation of the rules from Escobedo v. Illinois and People v. Dorado should not have been admitted at trial. The court held that those rules applied because the case had not become final before Escobedo was decided in 1964, following its prior decision in People v. Rollins, and that the postponement of judgment due to the commitment proceedings did not create an exception. The court therefore reversed the judgment and vacated the commitment orders.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved real estate brokers who accepted a promissory note secured by a second deed of trust on unimproved commercial lots as payment for their commission in an exchange transaction. After the first deed of trust was foreclosed and the security exhausted, the brokers sued the defendants for the unpaid balance on the note. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Code of Civil Procedure section 580b barred any deficiency recovery. The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1963 amendment to section 580b limits its protection against non-vendor lenders to residential property and does not apply to commercial property, and that the brokers qualified as third-party lenders rather than vendors under the statute's plain language.

property

The case involved defendant Robert Hutchinson, who was convicted by jury of marijuana possession after his mother discovered boxes of the substance in a shared bedroom; he appealed the probation order, contending that evidence was insufficient to prove knowledge and control, that the trial court erred in instructing on flight as consciousness of guilt, and that it wrongly refused to consider a juror affidavit describing bailiff statements that pressured the jury to reach a quick compromise verdict to avoid being locked up overnight. The court held the evidence sufficient, noting flight plus other circumstances supported the verdict beyond mere access, and addressed the admissibility of the affidavit under rules governing impeachment of verdicts by juror testimony about external coercive influences. It reasoned that while internal jury deliberations are generally shielded, affidavits may be considered when they reveal misconduct by court officers affecting the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Field Research Corporation and its president suing William P. Patrick for defamation based on his public statements criticizing a poll they conducted as inaccurate and dishonest. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Patrick, limiting recovery of general and exemplary damages for statements reported by news media because no correction demand had been served under Civil Code section 48a. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate to vacate that order. The California Supreme Court issued the writ, ruling that section 48a does not apply to third parties not engaged in the news dissemination industry whose statements are merely reported by media outlets. The court's reasoning focused on the statute's text, which requires service of a correction demand on publishers or broadcasters, and its purpose of protecting enterprises involved in rapid news dissemination rather than originators of statements who are not participants in the publishing process.

torts & liabilityfree speech

In this habeas corpus case, a state prison inmate challenged the Adult Authority's revocation of his parole for violations that occurred while he was insane and its refusal to credit time he spent committed to Atascadero State Hospital toward his sentence for grand theft. The court upheld the revocation, reasoning that the Authority's preliminary cancellation order was valid to protect its jurisdiction and that later revocation was supported by evidence of the inmate's dangerousness to society, independent of criminal responsibility for the underlying acts. However, the court granted credit for the hospital time, holding that Penal Code section 3064's "escape and fugitive" provision did not apply to court-ordered commitments for treatment under sections 1026 and 1367-1372, consistent with the policy of section 2685 that prisoners receive credit while undergoing hospital treatment. As a result, the inmate's maximum term had expired and he was ordered discharged.

criminal law

The case involved a sublessee who abandoned premises used as a trailer park after a septic system failure led to a county health department order requiring connection to public sewers at a cost of about $7,500, prompting an action for declaratory relief to declare the sublease unenforceable and recover a $3,000 deposit, along with related cross-claims on the underlying lease. The court addressed which party bore the duty to comply with governmental laws and orders affecting the premises under the lease terms and applicable law. It distinguished general repair obligations from compliance duties, noted that public policy requires ongoing compliance with no hiatus in responsibility, and examined doctrines such as frustration of purpose and Civil Code section 1932 to determine if the sublessee could terminate based on the unforeseen regulatory burden.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs who held an option to purchase real property from defendant D. Manley Knight, requiring annual $10,000 payments to keep the option alive until it could be exercised by April 1, 1968. After plaintiffs mailed one payment two days late in 1966, the defendant declared the option cancelled pursuant to the contract's automatic termination clause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, but the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture under Civil Code section 3275. The court reasoned that the breach was not grossly negligent, willful, or fraudulent, full compensation had been tendered, and the forfeiture would have terminated only the right to exercise the option in the future rather than the option exercise itself.

property

The case involved homeowners whose single-family houses in a Ventura County tract development suffered serious damage from cracking foundations caused by negligent construction on expansive adobe soil. Plaintiffs sued the builder for negligence and sought to hold the lender, Great Western Savings & Loan Association, liable either as a joint venturer with the builder or for breaching an independent duty of care by failing to require soil testing despite its extensive financing role and knowledge of site conditions. The trial court granted nonsuit to Great Western, but on appeal the California Supreme Court reviewed the evidence of the lender's involvement in project planning and its ability to impose soil precautions, concluding that plaintiffs had presented sufficient facts to support a duty of care and thus reversal of the nonsuit was required.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure