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

In People v. Williams, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder after he double-parked outside an eye clinic, entered, shot and killed an optician with a carbine rifle despite having no prior connection to the victim or clinic, and drove away. The primary defense at trial was that the defendant committed the act during a psychomotor epileptic seizure that rendered him unconscious and incapable of forming the specific intent, deliberation, or malice required for murder. After a trifurcated trial, the jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder in the guilt phase. On appeal, the court held that the conflicting psychiatric testimony—some supporting a seizure and others indicating awareness and intent—along with evidence of the defendant's conduct created a factual issue properly resolved by the jury rather than as a matter of law, and thus upheld the conviction on that phase.

criminal law

This case concerned a petition by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services to declare the children of Gloria M. dependent children of the court due to unsafe and unsanitary home conditions. The court held that the dependency hearing conducted by a referee violated the parents' due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because the referee assumed the roles of both judge and advocate without a representative from the Department present, compromising the appearance of fairness. The court reversed the order sustaining the petitions and remanded the case for further proceedings, requiring the Department to have counsel or a trained representative at any new hearing.

family lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns the division of community property upon dissolution of a marriage under Civil Code section 4800 of the Family Law Act of 1969. The trial court found the parties' assets included a home with equity, two cars, furniture, and an insurance policy; it awarded the home, furniture, and one car to the wife (subject to encumbrances), the other car and policy to the husband, and ordered the wife to pay the husband $4,250 in installments for his share of the home equity, with no interest or spousal support. The husband appealed, contending that essential findings were omitted, the division was not equal or immediate, and lacked protections against inflation or default. The court interpreted the statute as permitting delayed installment payments to achieve equal division, especially for a family residence to preserve stability for minor children, while noting that economic circumstances allow conditional awards and that interest or adjustments may be needed for true equality.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether sections 8180 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code opened California waters south of Point Mugu to unrestricted taking of anchovies for reduction purposes, or whether the Fish and Game Commission could validly regulate such activity through California Administrative Code title 14, section 147(a)-6-B, which imposed a 65,000-ton seasonal limit, geographic zones, and a prohibition on taking within three miles of the mainland shore. Defendant Zankich, who held a permit subject to those conditions, was charged with violating them. The court reviewed the statutory history, including prior versions of the code authorizing commission permits and regulations to prevent depletion or waste, and concluded that sections 8180 and 8181 addressed only the purposes for which anchovies could be taken and transported but did not displace the commission's separate regulatory authority over reduction fishing. The regulation was therefore held valid and not in conflict with the statute.

environmentcriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defendant charged with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury after attacking a coworker with an ax handle and choking her. A jury convicted him, after which the court found him to be a probable mentally disordered sex offender based on physicians' reports and committed him to a state hospital for an indeterminate period, suspending criminal proceedings. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the conviction and the giving of a jury instruction regarding his right not to testify. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and affirmed the criminal conviction but reversed the commitment order due to procedural errors in the mentally disordered sex offender proceedings and remanded for further action.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the purchase of a luxury home in Beverly Hills, where the buyers (Kadners) agreed to assume an existing first trust deed but included a clause making the terms of that encumbrance subject to their written approval. After reviewing the note, the buyers disapproved of its acceleration and prepayment penalty provisions (along with a discrepancy in the principal balance) on personal grounds, attempted to cancel the escrow and recover their $10,000 deposit, and sued for a declaration of rescission when the seller (Shields) refused and withheld the funds. The trial court ruled for the buyers, finding they could exercise subjective good-faith judgment under the approval clause rather than an objective reasonable-person standard, that their disapproval was genuine, and that they were entitled to rescind, recover the deposit with interest, and avoid damages for breach. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the clause created a valid condition precedent allowing personal satisfaction and that substantial evidence supported the buyers' good-faith exercise of that right without any duty to seek modifications or alternative financing. The decision turned on contract interpretation principles specific to satisfaction clauses in real estate transactions.

property

The case involved an employee who worked for 31 years and was discharged at age 54 for misconduct involving the destruction of company records to conceal uncollectible accounts. The employee sued for pension benefits under the employer's noncontributory plan, which provided that employees under age 55 with 30 years of service could receive a pension only at the discretion of a committee and the company president. The trial court awarded a proportional pension, but the appellate division reversed, and this court affirmed the reversal. The court reasoned that the plan's terms created no vested pension right until all conditions were met and the employee was retired, that discharge for prejudicial conduct terminated any rights under the plan's section 5, and that the employee brochures did not alter these discretionary provisions or create rights under contract-of-adhesion principles.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Lois R. v. Superior Court, a mother challenged a juvenile court referee's conduct during a contested hearing on a petition to declare her child a dependent under Welfare and Institutions Code section 600(a). The referee called and questioned the Department's witnesses, cross-examined the mother's witnesses, ruled on objections, and made objections himself, effectively presenting one side's case. The mother sought a writ of prohibition to halt further proceedings, including disposition. The court held that this procedure violated the parent's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, even if permitted by statute, because it improperly commingled prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in a single decision-maker, as illustrated by precedents like Ruiz v. Delgado and In re Murchison.

family lawprocedurecivil rightscriminal law

The case involved defendant Aikin, convicted by a jury of second-degree murder in the death of Gloria Cramer, with whom he had a stormy romantic relationship involving heavy drinking and prior conflicts; the victim died from head trauma consistent with blunt force, and evidence included bloodstains and the defendant's notes. On appeal from the judgment, the court reviewed the trial evidence and jury instructions on diminished capacity, express and implied malice, intent to kill, and the distinction between second-degree murder and manslaughter. The court identified inconsistencies and errors in the phrasing of several instructions, including those based on CALJIC, and held that an instruction drawn from Penal Code section 1097 and People v. Dewberry on giving the benefit of reasonable doubt as to the degree of the offense must be given sua sponte.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plane crash that killed both Milton Glass and pilot Alan Benkert; Glass's surviving family members filed a creditor's claim against Benkert's estate and later sued the estate, but the claim was submitted more than six months after the first publication of notice to creditors. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on timeliness grounds and entered an order of dismissal. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Probate Code sections 700 and 707 require claims to be filed within six months of the first publication date regardless of when the administratrix filed the affidavit of publication. The court reasoned that the statutory filing deadline is measured from the initial publication, the affidavit serves only as notice to the court and does not alter or extend that period, and any premature filing of the affidavit caused no prejudice to creditors.

procedure

The case involved defendant H. Edward Scofield being charged by grand jury indictment with presenting a fraudulent insurance claim to Aetna under Insurance Code section 556(a) based on submitting an inflated medical bill for unprovided treatments to claimant Nelson following an auto accident. After waiving a jury trial the matter was submitted on transcripts and the court convicted Scofield of the lesser included offense of attempt, sentencing him to 90 days in jail. On appeal the court considered challenges to the jury waiver and sufficiency of evidence including whether accomplice testimony about the fraudulent billing practices was adequately corroborated. The court affirmed the conviction finding sufficient corroboration from claims representatives testimony establishing submission of the bill and from other witnesses regarding the defendant's knowledge and participation in the billing scheme.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a juvenile petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that minor W.R.W. committed assault (later amended to battery). A referee found the allegation true but later dismissed the case after hearing testimony; more than ten days after notice of that dismissal, a superior court judge ordered a rehearing on his own motion and ultimately placed the minor on probation with a restitution order. The Court of Appeal held that the rehearing order was void for lack of jurisdiction because sections 556-559 make a referee's order final ten days after service if no timely application or judge-ordered rehearing occurs, following the rule in In re Henley. The court rejected the argument that ordering a transcript of testimony could extend the statutory period, emphasizing that the statute's plain language controls and does not permit such an interpretation.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

In People v. Neder, defendant Felix David Neder was charged with three counts of forgery under Penal Code section 470 after he and a codefendant used a stolen Sears credit card to purchase men's clothing at a Sears store. The trial court found him guilty on all counts based on a preliminary hearing transcript, sentencing him to concurrent jail terms, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support conviction on an aiding-and-abetting theory because Neder participated in selecting the merchandise, directed a clerk to the codefendant for payment, and remained present during the unauthorized uses of the card. It further ruled that the three separate sales constituted three distinct offenses rather than a single transaction, that prosecution under section 470 was proper, and that submission on the transcript did not violate the defendant's rights or render counsel ineffective.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Paul DeRasmo from the superior court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, after the real estate commissioner revoked his salesman's license under Business and Professions Code section 10177(a) for making a material misstatement on his license application by failing to disclose a 1953 New York conviction for heroin possession. The court held that the revocation was improper because the conviction was void due to a denial of the right to counsel, meaning it could not have served as a basis for denying the license and thus the omission did not constitute a material misstatement by which the license was procured. The reasoning centered on the statutory phrase "procured...by" a material misstatement, drawing on precedent interpreting similar licensing provisions to require that the withheld information would have allowed the commissioner to investigate and potentially deny the application, rather than mere falsity alone. The court also addressed procedural aspects of attacking void judgments via mandamus and the trial court's independent review of the evidence.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure