California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Haddock and Frank is that defendants establish a prima facie showing under the Racial Justice Act when they present factual allegations that, if true, would demonstrate a substantial likelihood of a violation, without requiring proof of their truth or prejudice analysis, under circumstances where an attorney's presentation of racially charged material to the jury exceeds the narrow exception for relating relevant third-party statements.

The Rule of Bobo v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court is that a trial court abuses its discretion when denying misdemeanor diversion by relying solely on facts inherent in the qualifying offense without connecting them to the underlying purposes of the misdemeanor diversion statute, under circumstances where the charged offense is not specifically excluded from the diversion program.

The Rule of In re Bergstrom is that Penal Code section 292 validly implements California Constitution article I, section 12's bail exception by defining specified sexual offenses against children as involving acts of violence and great bodily harm, under circumstances where the constitutional provision does not itself define these terms and the Legislature has authority to implement this constitutional bail exception.

The Rule of People v. Anderson is that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to CalECPA violations, permitting admission of electronic device evidence when law enforcement reasonably believed they had valid consent from an authorized possessor, under circumstances where a deceased person's next of kin consents to search the decedent's phone and no other person has a stronger claim to possession.

The Rule of *People v. Alston* is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, a trial court must expressly explain its reasons on the record when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge, including making findings on whether presumptively invalid reasons were rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, under circumstances where the prosecutor's stated reasons for the challenge include distrust of law enforcement by a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

The Rule of People v. Aguilar is that a prosecutor's peremptory challenge based on alleged "juror confusion" is presumptively invalid under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, subdivision (g)(1)(C), and requires the trial court to confirm that the asserted confused behavior actually occurred based on the court's own observations, under circumstances where the prospective juror is perceived as a member of a protected group and gives clear, consistent answers regarding the legal concept in question.

The Rule of People v. Bankers Insurance Company is that a trial court retains jurisdiction over a bail bond when defense counsel indicates there is a reason for defendant's nonappearance, conveys that reason to the court during an off-the-record discussion, and the court states on the record that based on the information given, it will not forfeit the bond, under circumstances where the court has reason to believe sufficient excuse may exist for the failure to appear per section 1305.1.

The Rule of People v. Molina is that different sex offender registration requirements for defendants convicted under Penal Code section 288(c)(1) versus section 288(a) do not violate equal protection where there is a rational basis for the disparity, under rational basis review where lifetime registration for section 288(c)(1) offenders (who must be at least 24 years old with a 10-year age gap) can be rationally distinguished from tier two registration for section 288(a) offenders.