California Legal Brief

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. 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 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 People v. Deen is that a trial court must conduct an objective evaluation of whether a prospective juror's circumstances would prevent or substantially interfere with their ability to act with entire impartiality, even when the juror states they can be fair, under circumstances where a panelist has personal relationships with victims or witnesses, has received detailed case information from prospective witnesses, and expresses concerns about their ability to be impartial.

The Rule of In re Melson is that the prosecution must correct false testimony from key eyewitnesses regarding what they previously told police during their identification process, even if the false statements appear to result from faulty memory rather than intentional perjury, under circumstances where the prosecutor knew or should have known the testimony was false based on available police interview transcripts and the false testimony could have contributed to the verdict.

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a defendant's handwritten note found at a crime scene stating he found victims "having sex" and that this "fills me with rage" is admissible as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's state of mind for provocation defense, under circumstances where the statement about what defendant observed is not hearsay when offered to show defendant's belief rather than truth of the observation, and the statement about defendant's emotional reaction is admissible hearsay under Evidence Code section 1250's state-of-mind exception.

The Rule of People v. Tzul is that a handwritten statement found at a crime scene expressing the defendant's rage and belief about what victims were doing has significant probative value for provocation defense that cannot be substantially outweighed by prejudice concerns under Evidence Code section 352, under circumstances where the statement is the only evidence of provocation and is central to the defense theory.

The Rule of In re O.F. is that a juvenile court cannot transfer a minor to criminal court based on evidence that does not meet the clear and convincing standard or without proper consideration of mandatory rehabilitative factors, under circumstances where the minor has demonstrated consistent willingness to engage in available treatment and programming while in custody.

The Rule of People v. Uceda is that a trial court must instruct sua sponte on grossly negligent discharge of a firearm (Penal Code § 246.3, subd.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts and police reports containing witness statements are inadmissible at Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearings, under circumstances where the defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and the documents constitute multiple levels of hearsay without applicable exceptions.

The Rule of **People v. Diaz** is that trial courts are not required to expressly state they have considered a defendant's youth when determining whether the defendant acted with express malice/intent to kill in section 1172.6 proceedings, under circumstances where the court is aware of the defendant's age and counsel argues youth as a mitigating factor but the court finds the defendant personally intended the victims' deaths.

The Rule of People v. Dixon is that grand jury proceeding transcripts are not admissible under Penal Code section 1172.6(d)(3)'s hearsay exception for evidence previously admitted at a prior hearing or trial, under circumstances where the Legislature used specific statutory language referring to "hearings" and "trials" while grand jury proceedings are designated as "proceedings" or "sessions" in the statutory scheme and lack adversarial safeguards.

The Rule of People v. Pineda is that at section 1172.6 resentencing evidentiary hearings, previously admitted hearsay testimony from preliminary hearings is admissible if it meets a current hearsay exception, including the declaration against interest exception when the statements subjected the declarant to risk of criminal liability.

The Rule of People v. Superior Court (Feghhi) is that an officer's failure to inform a magistrate in a search warrant application that a DUI defendant requested a breath test does not undermine the validity of the warrant authorizing seizure of a blood sample, under circumstances where the warrant was otherwise supported by probable cause based on objective signs of intoxication and the defendant's involvement in a fatal DUI crash.