William A. Reppy

This case involves a dispute over the validity of a Nevada divorce decree in a subsequent California divorce action filed by the wife. The husband had obtained a divorce in Nevada based on his residency there, and the California trial court found the Nevada court had jurisdiction and gave the decree full faith and credit, dismissing the wife's complaint. On appeal, the court upheld this, reasoning that while California courts may reexamine jurisdictional facts in a collateral attack, the evidence supported the husband's bona fide residency in Nevada for the required period, establishing Nevada's jurisdiction. The decision turned on a de novo review of the residency evidence presented in the California proceeding.

family lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Oscar James Henderson's convictions after a jury trial for robbery under Penal Code section 211 and simple kidnapping under section 207, along with findings that he was armed with a firearm during the robbery within the meaning of section 12022.5 and had inflicted great bodily injury. The underlying facts concerned the armed robbery of a gas station attendant, during which the perpetrators drove the victim a short distance in his car before binding him at a construction site and fleeing with the cash and vehicle. On appeal, the court determined that the jury had not been properly instructed on the element of firearm use required for the section 12022.5 enhancement, having received only general instructions applicable to being armed under section 12022, and that the kidnapping conviction required retrial due to inadequate instructions distinguishing it from an integrated part of the robbery. The court affirmed the robbery conviction but reversed the section 12022.5 finding and the kidnapping conviction, remanding the matter for retrial with directions for a specific finding on firearm use.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Manuel Ramos, who was charged with assault with intent to commit murder under Penal Code section 217 after allegedly shooting Frederick Mendivil at a party. After the prosecution presented initial evidence including a revolver, defense counsel moved to suppress the gun and other items seized during a warrantless entry into Ramos's home, arguing illegal search and seizure under Penal Code section 1538.5; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion. The jury convicted Ramos of the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code section 245, and he appealed the judgment. The court upheld the denial of the suppression motion, reasoning that officers had probable cause, exigent circumstances existed because the suspect was believed to be armed and dangerous, and any noncompliance with knock-and-announce requirements under Penal Code section 844 was excused. It also addressed whether the lesser offense was properly included despite the charging language.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Edward Kasel suing Remington Arms Company for personal injuries sustained when a defective 12-gauge shotgun shell exploded in Mexico during a hunting trip. Kasel had purchased the shell from a Mexican seller, but it was produced by Cartuchos Deportivos De Mexico (CDM), a company in which Remington held 40 percent ownership, provided technical assistance and financing, and licensed its trademarks under agreements giving Remington quality-control rights. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for Remington, and Kasel appealed. On appeal, the court analyzed Remington's relationship to CDM and concluded that California products-liability law applied instead of Mexican law because of the substantial California connections and the policy of spreading enterprise risks through the stream of commerce.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned the prosecution of defendant Moses for the unlawful sale of dangerous drugs (Seconal) to an undercover officer during a police 'buy program,' with identity of the seller as the central disputed issue at trial. The defense sought to impeach the officer's testimony on identification accuracy and report reliability by inquiring into prior instances of alleged misidentifications or discrepancies in his buys. The trial court restricted such cross-examination and extrinsic evidence, and on appeal the court examined the interplay of Evidence Code provisions on witness credibility, including limits on specific instances of conduct under section 787, character trait evidence, and discretionary exclusion for prejudice or confusion under section 352. The court concluded that the proposed impeachment was properly limited as it involved inadmissible specific instances or matters whose probative value was outweighed by risks of undue delay and jury confusion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant facing multiple drug-related charges under the Health and Safety Code, including sale of cocaine, possession of marijuana for sale, and possession of paraphernalia, stemming from incidents in November and December 1970; an initial plea bargain collapsed, leading to a jury trial that resulted in acquittals on some counts, a conviction on paraphernalia possession, and a hung jury on the cocaine sale count. Judge Dodson later dismissed the remaining sale count on his own motion under Penal Code section 1385, relying on the trial judge's assessment that conviction was unlikely without the absent co-defendant Mitchell and on docket management concerns. The court upheld this dismissal, determining that a non-trial judge could properly evaluate the probability of conviction and exercise discretion to dismiss when further prosecution would serve little purpose, even over the prosecution's objections regarding jurisdiction and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure