The Third-Party Doctrine vs. Katz v. Untied States

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb proposes revising the third-party doctrine in a way that reconciles two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions that some critics view as conflicting. Colb suggests that, contrary to what most critics argue and what she herself has long assumed, the prior decision, Katz v. United States rather than the later one, United States v. White, is the anomaly.

Read More

California v. Albert

Docket: E071365(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Raphael

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After the verdict in this case, a juror asserted that during the trial he had been visited at home by a man who purported to be the brother of one of the defendants, causing the juror to be scared. The trial court denied a new trial motion brought by defendants-appellants Anthony Albert and Noah Roosevelt Davis due to that incident, leaving in place their convictions of first degree murder and gang participation. In the published portion of this opinion, the Court of Appeal rejected defendants’ claim that the Court should have presumed the juror had a bias that violated the defendants’ constitutional rights, thus affirming the convictions. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the Court modified the judgment to correct certain sentencing errors, ordered the correction of clerical error in defendants’ abstract of judgment, reversed the orders imposing a $10,000 criminal restitution fine on each defendant, and remanded for a hearing on defendants’ ability to pay the fines.

In re Brownlee

Docket: F077663(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Snauffer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

Terrence Brownlee was 19 years old when he was sentenced to 17 years to life in state prison for second degree murder committed with a firearm. The Court of Appeal held that Brownlee was not entitled to a youth offender parole hearing, because the statutory framework's plain language, Penal Code sections 3051, 3051.1, and 4801, does not afford him one. The court explained that, within this statutory framework, if a prisoner's first parole hearing is not a youth offender parole hearing, then the prisoner does not receive a youth offender parole hearing. Such prisoners are still entitled to have the board consider the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and maturity.

In re Rayford

Dockets: B264402(Second Appellate District) , B303007(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Feuer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendants Rayford and Glass were convicted of 11 counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling based on their participation in a 2004 shooting. The Court of Appeal granted the petitions for habeas relief and held that People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 597, applies retroactively to defendants' convictions. The Supreme Court held in Canizales that a jury may convict a defendant under the kill zone theory only when the jury has made two findings. Under Canizales, the court held that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to instruct the jury on the kill zone theory, and it was prejudicial error to instruct the jury on the kill zone theory.

People v. Cole

Docket: A156662(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Peter J. Siggins

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Ricardo and Cole were arguing about their relationship. Ricardo demanded to see Cole's phone. Standing in an alley, they exchanged cell phones. Ricardo saw a text message indicating that Cole did not intend to repay certain expenses Ricardo had paid. Ricardo threw Cole’s phone on the ground. Cole repeatedly punched Ricardo in the face. While Ricardo was on the ground, Cole reached into his pockets and took his work and personal cell phones. Cole left Ricardo lying in the alley, threatening: If you call the cops I will send my brother to kill you. Police quickly apprehended Cole, who was uninjured with blood on his face and hand. Ricardo’s cell phones were in his pocket. Cole testified that he had acted in self-defense during a mutual fight started by Ricardo. Cole admitted he was a “con artist” who pretended to be Ricardo’s boyfriend and led him on for a year to think they would eventually have sex. Cole was convicted of assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury, battery with serious bodily injury, and second-degree robbery. The trial court placed Cole on three years’ probation. The court of appeal affirmed, modifying the sentence. Cole is subject to only one probationary term. The court was not required to instruct the jurors that they must agree on the specific acts that constituted the force or fear element of robbery.

People v. Howard

Docket: A157285(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Barbara J.R. Jones

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In 2010, an 80-year-old woman was shot and killed during a burglary of her home. Three defendants, including Howard, were charged. Howard was convicted of first-degree murder with a felony-murder special circumstance and a finding that he had been armed in the commission of the offense. The court sentenced Howard to life without the possibility of parole. In 2018, the court of appeal reversed the felony-murder special circumstance, concluding the evidence was insufficient to show Howard—who was not the actual killer—acted with reckless indifference to human life. On remand, Howard moved to vacate his murder conviction under Penal Code section 1170.95, effective 2019. The statute provides that where a murder conviction was charged generically and the underlying felony was not charged, the trial court redesignates the “underlying felony for resentencing purposes.” The parties agreed and the court vacated Howard's murder conviction. The court redesignated Howard’s conviction as first-degree burglary, sentenced Howard to the aggravated six-year prison term for the burglary, designated the offense a violent felony, and imposed a one-year arming enhancement. The court of appeal affirmed. The evidence at trial established that the defendants burglarized a residence. Redesignating the conviction as first-degree burglary did not violate Howard’s constitutional rights. The court properly designated the offense a violent felony and imposed an arming enhancement.

Gutierrez v. Brand Energy Services of California

Docket: A154604(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Frank Y. Jackson

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

Gutierrez, a former Brand employee, sued Brand in a proposed class action for nonpayment of pre-shift employer-mandated travel time, citing Labor Code and Business and Professions Code provisions. The trial court granted Brand summary judgment before class certification, finding that a complete defense existed under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16-2001, section 5(D). According to the court, the provision permitted union-represented employees and their employers to enter into collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) that waived the right to all compensation for employer-mandated travel time. The court found that the applicable CBAs, as amended by a 2017 letter of understanding, confirmed a bargained-for practice wherein Brand compensated its employees for post-shift but not pre-shift mandatory travel time. The court of appeal reversed. Wage Order 16 does not state that union-represented employees and employers can avoid paying any compensation whatsoever for employer-mandated travel time. Section 5(A) identifies two rates of pay, the employee’s regular rate and, if applicable, the premium rate and provides that it applies to any employees covered by a valid CBA “unless the [CBA] expressly provides otherwise.” Section 5 does not mention, much less override, the separate requirement under section 4(B) that employees receive compensation “not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked.”

Verrazono v. Gehl Co.

Docket: A152318(First Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 16, 2020

Judge: Kathleen M. Banke

Areas of Law: Personal Injury, Products Liability

Verrazono was seriously injured when a rough terrain forklift he was operating tipped over. He sued the manufacturer. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding the forklift was not defective and the manufacturer was not negligent. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Verrazono’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the “consumer expectations” test for design defect and erred in giving a “dynamite instruction” when the jury became deadlocked. Verrazono presented no evidence as to the safety expectations of a “hypothetical reasonable” telehandler user under the circumstances that occurred. Rather, Verrazono’s engineering expert’s testimony bore on a risk-benefit analysis. This was not a case where evidence about the objective features of the product, alone, was sufficient for an evaluation of whether the forklift was defectively designed in the manner Verrazono claimed. Verrazono’s failure to set forth all material evidence forfeited his substantial evidence claims.