(1) Tract 19051 Homeowners Association et al. v. Kemp (Maurice) et al., S211596 [To be called and continued to February 2015 oral argument calendar.]
(2) People v. Diaz (Dora), S205145
Decision below reported at 208 Cal.App.4th 711. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did the trial court err by failing to instruct the jury, on the court’s own motion, that the jury was required to consider defendant’s extrajudicial, oral statements with caution even though the statements constituted the alleged criminal act? (2) If so, did the Court of Appeal correctly conclude that the trial court’s failure to instruct was harmless error?
(3) Coffey (Ashley Jourdan) v. Shiomoto (Jean), S213545
Decision below reported at 218 Cal.App.4th 1288. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) Can circumstantial evidence other than the results of chemical tests be used to prove that a driver’s blood-alcohol content at the time of driving was the same as, or greater than, the results of a blood-alcohol test taken approximately an hour after driving? (2) Is the decision of the Court of Appeal consistent with the requirements of Evidence Code section 604 for proof of an initially presumed fact after the presumption has been rebutted?
(4) People v. Loper (James Alden), S211840
Decision below reported at 216 Cal.App.4th 969. Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the denial of a request for recall of sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (e). The court directed the parties to brief the following issues: (1) Is a trial court’s order denying the recall of a sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (e) appealable? (2) Assuming such an order is appealable, what is the proper standard of review on appeal? (3) Was the trial court’s order denying the recall of defendant’s sentence correct in this case?
(5) People v. Cook (Victoria Samantha), S215927
Decision below reported at 222 Cal.App.4th 1. This case presents the following issue: Does Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (g), which provides that the great bodily injury enhancement of this section “shall not apply to murder or manslaughter . . . ,” allow an enhancement on a manslaughter conviction for the great bodily injury inflicted on another victim who was the subject of a separate manslaughter conviction?
(6) People v. Scott (Royce Lyn), S064858 [Automatic Appeal]
This matter is an automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco is redefining legal education through our experiential, interdisciplinary, and international approach to the law. We integrate rigorous academics with hands-on practice, preparing our graduates to tackle the legal challenges—and leverage the opportunities—of the 21st century.
UC Hastings. Made in San Francisco. Ready for the World.