Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[08/28] Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Richards
In an suit to resolve conflicting claims to the proceeds of a life-insurance policy, judgment that defendant, the wife of decedent, conspired in, aided and abetted the murder of decedent and was thus disqualified under state law from receiving life insurance proceeds is affirmed where: 1) defendant, having asserted the privilege against self-incrimination at her deposition, was properly precluded from testifying at trial that she was not involved in the murder; 2) an adverse inference could properly be drawn from defendant's exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination; 3) a witness was properly characterized as an out-of-state resident and thus unavailable for trial; and 4) alleged hearsay in the witness's deposition testimony in fact consisted of admissible co-conspirator statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy to murder decedent.

[08/28] US v. Gamba
On remand from the Supreme Court, denial of habeas relief for petitioner, convicted of witness tampering after a magistrate judge was allowed to preside over closing arguments, is affirmed where: 1) defense counsel may waive the defendant's right to have an Article III judge preside over closing argument without the defendant's express, personal consent where the decision is one of trial tactics or legal strategy; and 2) closing argument clearly bears a relation to specified duties magistrate judges are statutorily authorized to perform.

[08/28] Godinez-Arroyo v. Mukasey
Petition to review decision ordering removal of petitioner for conviction of second-degree assault is denied where: 1) aliens convicted of "a crime involving moral turpitude" are subject to removal; 2) petitioner's conviction for "recklessly caus[ing] serious physical injury to another person" is a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; and 3) the Board of Immigration Appeals conclusion was persuasive.

[08/28] US v. Payne
In a conviction for multiple counts involving drugs, firearms, violence and multiple murders, court order authorizing involuntary medication treatment plan designed to restore defendant's competency to stand trial is affirmed over claims of error that the district court erred in finding that the evidence offered at the hearing was sufficient to establish that the proposed treatment is substantially likely to restore defendant's competency.

[08/27] P. v. Bolton
Conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, mayhem, battery, and resisting an officer is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in relieving defendant's attorney just a few days prior to trial, based on the attorney's assertion that a conflict of interest existed.

[08/27] P. v. Morris
Conviction for grand theft, receiving stolen property, and two prison prior allegations is affirmed in part and reversed in part where the conviction of receiving stolen property must be reversed as it was based upon his possession of the very same property that formed the basis of his grand theft conviction.

[08/27] US v. Yelaun
Conviction and sentence for federal fraud related offenses committed during a scheme to collect insurance payments for medical tests is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) certain trial testimony was admitted in error; 2) there was a variance between the indictment's count 43, which charged defendant with conspiracy to commit money laundering, and the proof at trial; and 3) the judged erred in calculating defendant's sentence according to two sentence enhancements.

[08/27] US v. Sanchez-Badillo
Convictions and sentences for conspiring to distribute heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana are affirmed over claims of error that: 1) jury's conspiracy verdict was not supported by evidence; 2) trial court made sentencing errors; 3) evidence was insufficient to support jury's verdict against one of the defendants on weapons charges and prosecutorial misconduct entitles him to a new trial; and 4) trial judge made impermissible comments in the jury's presence and defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel.

More...

Family Law

[08/27] David L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Regarding juvenile court order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing, petition for writ of mandate and request for stay are denied where: 1) section 366.3, which provides for a new 366.26 hearing for children under the guardianship, does not require a modification petition; and 2) the prima facie evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to set a 366.26 hearing.

[08/27] Sheri T. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Petition seeking extraordinary relief from juvenile court order setting new permanent plan selection hearing is denied where: 1) order setting a new permanent plan selection hearing was correct; 2) when circumstances have changed, the court should hold a permanent plan selection hearing unless the mother proves there is a compelling reason not to do so; and 3) the mother cannot show prejudice from the juvenile court's decision to hold a new permanent plan selection hearing and she will have an opportunity to fully litigate the issues at that time.

[08/22] In re A.C.
Order terminating parental rights is affirmed where: 1) the dependency court's noncompliance with section 372 standing alone does not violate the parent's due process rights; and 2) the error is subject to a harmless error standard.

[08/22] Iglesias v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen the case is denied where: 1) petitioner's allegation that BIA had ignored evidence put forth by petitioner regarding his marriage to an American citizen was an allegation of legal error subject to appellate review; but 2) petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide.

[08/21] Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist.
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

[08/21] US v. Carson
Sentence for conspiring to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity and interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where, for purposes of applying a sentencing enhancement, the minor victim was properly determined to be in defendant's custody, care, or supervisorial control, despite argument that the victim's mother's presence gave her sole custody and control.

[08/20] In re Adrianna P.
Order granting reunification services to presumed father is remanded with orders to vacate where: 1) the record made clear that providing reunification services to father would be detrimental to the child; and 2) the court abused its discretion when it ordered agency to provide reunification services to father. Order directing agency to provide reunification services to other presumed father is affirmed where: 1) despite court's erroneous legal conclusion regarding section 361.5, the court did not abuse its discretion with this order; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification was in the children's best interests.

[08/19] In re Aaron D.
Termination of mother's parental rights to her two children is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Texas had jurisdiction over custody determinations involving the children and the California juvenile court did not contact the Texas court to resolve jurisdiction; 2) mother did not receive proper notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 selection and implementation hearing; and 3) the court erred in finding the children adoptable because of their special developmental needs, physical ailments, and psychosocial issues.

More...