The trial court declined to issue a domestic violence restraining order for two reasons. First, it determined that mental abuse was insufficient, and, second, that past physical abuse was insufficient. The court of Appeal reversed. With regard to mental abuse, the appellate court stated: “In this case, the testimony that the trial court did permit […]
The general rule is that statutes, including those clarifying existing law, do not operate retrospectively. In Western Security Bank v. Superior Court (1997) 15 Cal.4th 232 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 933 P.2d 507], the California Supreme Court held that, despite that general rule, when the Legislature promptly reacts to the emergence of a novel question of statutory interpretation by the courts, “[a]n amendment which in effect construes and clarifies a prior statute must be accepted as the legislative declaration of the meaning of the original act, where the amendment was adopted soon after the controversy arose concerning the proper interpretation of the statute.”
After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] “validated” a Pelican Bay inmate to be a gang associate of the Mexican Mafia, the inmate challenged the decision by filing a habeas corpus petition.
Joseph H., age 10, woke up early one morning and shot his father in the head as he slept on the sofa. Joseph was a difficult child. From the time he was three years old, his paternal grandmother could not babysit him because she could not control his outbursts.
A juvenile ward of the court admitted he committed second-degree burglary and was placed on probation. On appeal, he challenged an electronic search condition requiring him to “submit…any electronics and passwords under [his] control to search by Probation Officer or peace officer with or without a search warrant.” The Court of Appeal found the condition […]
In 1995, a jury sentenced defendant to death for the rape and murder of his girlfriend’s mother. He now argues that the delay in carrying out his execution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
After a series of violent incidents, the court issued a restraining order to protect petitioner and her family. A few years later, petitioner asked the court to renew the restraining order after she spotted a vehicle outside her home, although petitioner did not know who was driving it. The vehicle was similar to the one the restrained man drives. The trial court declined to renew the restraining order because of lack of evidence.
A Sheriff’s department received an emergency 911 call, reporting some people were fighting in an alley behind his home. The caller said he could hear screaming and one person had said, “the gun was loaded.” The caller stayed on the line, and shortly thereafter confirmed a squad car had arrived. As an officer drove along […]
The son of the former Speaker of the California State Assembly aided in the stabbing and killing of a young man near the campus of San Diego State University in October 2008. He was charged with murder and pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter on the eve of trial, and was sentenced to 16 years in […]
A prison inmate is a Muslim and a member of the Nation of Islam, a religious organization. His religious beliefs forbid him from consuming or handling pork. Prison officials ordered the inmate to cook pork loins as part of his kitchen duties. The Ninth Circuit held prison employees violated the inmate’s clearly established right to […]