Latest 4 Cases: In re Morse (Constitutional Law), People v. Cook (Criminal Law), People v. Mackreth (Criminal Law)

NYC’s Mandatory Collective Bargaining Agreements in Fast-Food Shops?

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, ZACHARY FASMAN

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and adjunct professor Zachary Fasman comment on two bills passed by the New York City Council that would mandate detailed and extensive labor protections for fast-food workers in New York City. Professors Estreicher and Fasman praise the intent behind the laws but explain why the City Council is not the place where binding agreements governing private workplaces in the City should be enacted.

Read More

In re Morse

Docket: D077483(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 5, 2021

Judge: Patricia D. Benke

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

William Morse petitioned for habeas relief from a superior court order which found under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (SVPA), there was probable cause to believe petitioner was likely to engage in sexually violent predatory behavior without treatment or custody. The court sustained petitioner’s objection based on California v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) to portions of the experts’ psychological evaluations, but nonetheless found the remaining evidence was sufficient to support a finding that petitioner met the criteria of a sexually violent predator (SVP). Petitioner argued the court correctly found Sanchez applied at the probable cause hearing; that, after sustaining his hearsay objection to the experts’ evaluations, there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s probable cause finding; and that the State “waived” their right to assert Welfare & Institutions Code section 6602 was an implied exception to the hearsay rule by failing to raise this specific ground at the hearing. Therefore, petitioner argues the petition had to be dismissed. After review, the Court of Appeal determined the court erred in sustaining petitioner’s hearsay objection at the section 6602 hearing. The Court found the SVPA as a whole, and section 6602 in particular, evinced a legislative intent to allow a court to consider hearsay in the experts’ evaluations when making a probable cause determination. "In our view, requiring an evaluator to rely on nonhearsay only in preparing his or her evaluation of a person, or requiring the People to produce at an interim probable cause hearing independent foundational evidence to support the historical information relied on by evaluators, would undermine the purpose of such a hearing and the SVPA in general. . . . At an SVP trial, the People must still proffer nonhearsay evidence in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is an SVP subject to civil commitment." The Court concluded there was ample evidence in the record to support the court’s probable cause finding. Petitioner's writ petition was denied.

People v. Cook

Docket: B301970(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 5, 2021

Judge: Tricia A. Bigelow

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed defendant's conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (b)(1); he was not charged with or convicted of violating section 136.1, subdivision (c). Therefore, the prosecutor, was not required to prove defendant acted knowingly and maliciously. In this case, while defendant's mother tried to call 911 to report that defendant was fighting with his brother, he ripped the phone off the wall and threw it to the ground, which broke the phone and disconnected the call. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict.

People v. Mackreth

Docket: H046266M(Sixth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 5, 2021

Judge: Franklin D. Elia

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Officer Meyer, wearing a uniform and badge, responded to a 911 call. Outside a store, a bystander said: "The guy ran in the store and was stuffing all kinds of shit down his pants" and identified Makreth behind the counter. Meyer was concerned that Makreth might have a weapon and that a robbery was planned. Mackreth ran into the storeroom. Meyer called for backup with lights and sirens. Mackreth emerged with “something” in his hands. Meyer drew his taser and yelled, “Get on the ground.” Mackreth looked “puzzled.” Eventually, he got on the ground but “popped up.” Meyer fired his taser. Mackreth ran around, despite efforts to stop him. More officers arrived. Several struggles ensued, during which officers were injured. Mackreth was under the influence of methamphetamine at an “abuse level.” Methamphetamine was found in his car. Mackreth was placed on probation after he was convicted of misdemeanor resisting arrest, vandalism, and being under the influence of methamphetamine. The court of appeal affirmed, upholding a jury instruction that he could be convicted of resisting arrest if he knew or “should have known” that the person he resisted was a police officer. The court subsequently remanded. Mackreth may be entitled to relief under Assembly Bill 1950, effective on January 1, 2021, which amended Penal Code section 1203a to limit to one year the length of probation for a misdemeanor conviction. One court has held that this amendment is retroactive to all non-final cases.

In re K.B.

Docket: B305420(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: January 5, 2021

Judge: Wiley

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's orders exercising jurisdiction over mother's three children and removing them from their parents. The court held that the trial court properly found that the mother's conduct put her children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The court explained that the mother routinely disappeared from her children's lives at about 5:00 p.m. until they woke her the next morning for school; it was reasonable for the juvenile court to infer the mother's drug use had something to do with this conduct; and the resulting failure to supervise the children put them at serious risk. The court also held that sufficient evidence supports the finding that father's substance abuse put one of the children, J.N., at a substantial risk of serious physical harm. Finally, sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's dispositional order removing the children.