California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Lopez-Tapia is that the lower term presumption under Penal Code section 1170(b)(6) requires evidence that childhood trauma was a contributing factor to the specific offense, not merely that trauma contributed to general gang involvement, under circumstances where a defendant claims childhood trauma should trigger mandatory lower term sentencing.

The Rule of Department of Human Resources v. California Correctional Peace Officers Association is that an arbitrator does not exceed their powers by issuing an award that offsets an SPB-approved disciplinary suspension when the award is based on violations of the Dills Act and MOU protections for union activity, under circumstances where the SPB reviewed the disciplinary action for cause under the Civil Service Act while the arbitrator separately reviewed whether the same discipline constituted unlawful retaliation for protected activities.

The Rule of J.M. v. Illuminate Education, Inc. is that an educational technology company that collects and stores student medical information to help school districts assess educational needs is not a "provider of health care" under the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), and students are not "customers" under the Customer Records Act (CRA), under circumstances where the company provides services to school districts rather than directly to individuals for medical diagnosis/treatment or personal health record management.

The Rule of People v. Wilmot is that a trial court commits prejudicial error when it modifies a CALCRIM jury instruction to require that a killing be "unintentional" for voluntary manslaughter, under circumstances where the modification incorrectly suggests that an intentional killing in the heat of passion cannot qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

The Rule of People v. Wayne Hansen Hsiung is that a criminal defendant charged with specific intent crimes such as conspiracy and trespass with intent to interfere has a constitutional right to present evidence of his good faith but mistaken belief that his conduct was legally justified under the necessity defense, even though the necessity defense itself is legally unavailable, under circumstances where the defendant relied on legal opinions advising that his actions were lawful.

The Rule of J.N. et al. v. Jeffrey Goldberg is that a motion for Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 sanctions must comply with statutory notice requirements by specifying the hearing date in the initial notice of motion to trigger the mandatory 21-day safe harbor period, under circumstances where the superior court's electronic Court Reservation System makes it impossible to obtain a hearing date more than three days in advance but the safe harbor period requires 21 days.

The Rule of Cardenas v. Los Angeles Unified School District is that appellate arguments are forfeited when the opening brief cites only to trial court briefing that itself contains no record citations, under circumstances where the appellate brief fails to provide direct citations to record evidence supporting factual assertions.

The Rule of People v. Mijares is that a defendant's attack remains the but-for cause and proximate cause of death even when the victim suffers from serious preexisting medical conditions, under circumstances where the coroner testifies that the defendant's assault caused the death and the victim would have survived at least several more years absent the attack.

The Rule of People v. Morris is that under Penal Code section 189, subdivision (e)(2), a nonkiller defendant must aid or abet the actual killer in the lethal act itself, not just the underlying felony, under the amended felony-murder rule where the defendant acted with intent to kill.

The Rule of People v. Berch is that felony false imprisonment based on menace does not require a threat to inflict force that is greater than necessary to effectuate restraint on a person's liberty, under circumstances where menace involves a threat to inflict injury upon another person.

The Rule of People v. Moss is that a trial court may reimpose an upper term sentence during Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing without additional jury findings or defendant stipulation to aggravating factors, under circumstances where the defendant was originally sentenced to an upper term.

The Rule of Garcia-Rojas v. Franchise Tax Board is that a nonresident sole proprietor engaging in only one business activity cannot constitute a "unitary business" for purposes of California taxation under regulation 17951-4(c), under circumstances where the taxpayer operates a single-activity sole proprietorship receiving compensation from one entity, even when that entity's clients are located both within and outside California.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Nishida and Kamoda is that a family law fraud action filed timely in civil court and transferred to family law court may proceed on the merits rather than being dismissed for jurisdictional reasons, under circumstances where the plaintiff filed a civil complaint within the one-year discovery period of Family Code section 2122(a) and the case was properly transferred between departments of the same superior court.

The Rule of People v. Lopez is that defendants who petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 are not categorically ineligible for relief merely because they could have challenged allegedly ambiguous jury instructions on direct appeal from their original conviction, under circumstances where the petitioner alleges they were convicted under a now-invalid theory of imputed malice due to instructional ambiguity.

The Rule of In re Kowalczyk is that trial courts may only deny bail in noncapital cases for offenses specified in California Constitution article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and when setting monetary bail, must generally set it in an amount that is reasonably attainable for the defendant based on an individualized assessment of the totality of circumstances, under circumstances where pretrial detention is not warranted under section 12 subdivisions (b) or (c).

The Rule of People v. Stayner is that a defendant's statement "I prefer not to talk now" during a Miranda advisement does not constitute an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights when the defendant subsequently agrees to be interviewed at a different location, under circumstances where the defendant was told he was not under arrest, voluntarily agreed to travel with FBI agents, and later voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and signed a waiver form before making any incriminating statements.

The Rule of The Chemical Toxin Working Group is that Proposition 65's 60-day pre-suit notice substantially complies with regulatory requirements when it provides the name and contact information of the noticing entity's outside counsel rather than a responsible individual within the noticing entity, under circumstances where the notice otherwise identifies the alleged violation with sufficient specificity to enable prosecuting agencies to assess the claim and allow violators to cure violations.

The Rule of People v. Mohammed is that trial courts lack inherent jurisdiction to correct unauthorized sentences once judgment is final and execution has begun, under circumstances where the defendant has not timely appealed and the court acts solely based on the unauthorized sentence rule.

The Rule of Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America is that trade associations that intervene in litigation to protect their members' direct pecuniary interests in government registration decisions are "opposing parties" liable for private attorney general fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, under circumstances where the intervenors actively participate in defending challenged government approvals that directly affect their members' economic interests.

The Rule of Garner v. California Victim Compensation Board is that a murder conviction that was valid under the law in effect at the time of trial is not "erroneous" within the meaning of Penal Code section 4900, under circumstances where the Legislature subsequently changed the definition of murder and the conviction was vacated under Penal Code section 1172.6 based on the new definition.