Cites Michigan Trust Co. v. Bronson — APPEAL from a decree of distribution of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James C. Rives, Judge. Reversed.
The case involved defendant Robert Alton Harris's appeal from convictions for the first-degree murders, kidnappings, and robberies of two teenage boys, as well as related firearm offenses, following a bank robbery plot in San Diego County; the jury found multiple special circumstances including multiple murders and murders committed during felonies, leading to a death sentence. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The court's reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence from the guilt phase establishing premeditated killings, proper findings on special circumstances under Penal Code section 190.2, and rejection of claims regarding pretrial publicity and venue change based on community impact and jury selection processes.
The case involved defendant Tony Chun-Ho Szeto's convictions for being an accessory to felony murder by helping dispose of weapons used in the 1977 Golden Dragon restaurant shootings in San Francisco and for illegal possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The defendant appealed, arguing that the testimony of accomplice Chester Yu was not adequately corroborated under Penal Code section 1111. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that independent evidence such as the defendant's gang associations, presence at related events, and other connections sufficiently tended to link him to the crimes without relying on the accomplice's statements. The court applied settled standards requiring only that corroboration reasonably connect the defendant to the offenses, which the jury could find here.
This case involved a plaintiff arrested in Nevada by agents of defendant nightclubs on a disturbing the peace charge who later sued the defendants in California for tort claims including assault, battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. In exchange for the local prosecutor's recommendation to dismiss the charge, the plaintiff signed a written release waiving all civil claims against the defendants and related parties; the charge was then dismissed. After a separate jury trial on the defendants' affirmative defense, the trial court upheld the release as valid and entered judgment for the defendants. The California Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the release was not contrary to public policy because the plaintiff's consent was voluntary, the prosecutor acted on a good-faith belief in probable cause, and the agreement served legitimate interests without improper coercion.
This case involved a dispute over the sale of shares in Execudex San Jose, Inc., an executive placement business, where buyer Dr. Harry Ehrmantraut paid $25,000 cash and a $60,000 promissory note to seller Theo Fox. Fox sued to collect on the note after Ehrmantraut defaulted, and Ehrmantraut cross-complained alleging misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, and seeking rescission based on inaccurate financial information about the parent licensor company and regulatory issues. The trial court entered judgment for Fox on both the complaint and cross-complaint, finding no false representations or concealment of material facts. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Ehrmantraut failed to prove any actionable misrepresentations regarding the parent company's accounts receivable or capital accounts and that the stock sale qualified for an exemption under the California Franchise Investment Law as a sale by a franchisee for its own account without the franchisor receiving proceeds. The court also rejected claims that the transaction violated securities qualification requirements.
This case involved a challenge by the prosecution to a trial court's order suppressing evidence in a murder prosecution, on the ground that the evidence was the fruit of an illegal arrest lacking probable cause. The California Supreme Court granted the People's petition for a writ of mandate, holding that the arrest was lawful. The officer responded to a report of a gunshot victim and found the defendant alone near the body, with knowledge of the defendant's prior motive to harm the victim, history of violence, and visible bloodstains on the defendant's clothing. These facts, the court reasoned, would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the defendant had committed the murder, satisfying the standard for probable cause.
The case involved defendant Raymond Mack's convictions for first degree murder, six counts of first degree robbery, and one count of first degree burglary, along with a finding of great bodily injury, based in part on stolen property observed in a garage during a police search. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after staying sentences on the non-murder counts. The core issue was the legality of an officer's warrantless entry into the garage to search for additional suspects following an informant's tip, shouts of alarm, and sounds of movement inside, during which stolen items were seen in plain view. The court held the entry reasonable under the precedent of People v. Block, as the officer could point to specific facts supporting a belief that suspects might be hiding, allowing seizure of the visible evidence.