Robert W. Merrill

The case involved Darren Brew, who was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery and one count of grand theft by larceny after an incident at a drug store where he took money from a cash register by approaching a cashier closely and causing her to step back in fear, then struggling with a store manager. Brew appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of force or fear for one robbery conviction and that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on grand theft by larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery. The court found sufficient evidence to support the robbery finding based on the circumstances creating fear or intimidation but reversed the robbery conviction against the cashier due to the instructional error on the lesser offense, vacated the grand theft conviction as a lesser included offense of the other robbery, and affirmed the remaining robbery conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Pam Nightingale sued Hyundai Motor America under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act after her new car repeatedly failed to perform properly despite multiple repair attempts, resulting in a jury verdict for compensatory damages and statutory penalties. Hyundai appealed only the trial court's award of $113,853 in attorney fees to Nightingale's counsel. The Court of Appeal modified the fee award downward to $75,648, holding that fees are recoverable only to the extent they were actually incurred by the buyer under the statute, which in this instance meant only the $120 hourly rate Nightingale was obligated to pay rather than the higher rates her attorney later charged other clients.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned an inmate's challenge to a 10 percent surcharge imposed by San Quentin prison on purchases of handicraft materials through its program, with the proceeds deposited in the Inmate Welfare Fund. The superior court had enjoined prison officials from collecting the surcharge, but the Court of Appeal vacated that order. The court held that Penal Code sections 5005, 5006, and 2813 authorize the surcharge as a means to make prison programs self-supporting and to fund the IWF, which covers costs such as equipment, maintenance, and operations for the handicraft program that directly benefit participants. It rejected the inmate's claims that the surcharge was unlawful, finding it consistent with statutory directives and supported by evidence of program expenses despite one audit showing profits.

criminal law

In Moores v. Walsh, appellants who bought a landlocked 40-acre parcel in Mendocino County sued for declaratory and injunctive relief to establish an easement across respondent's surrounding property for access, including logging. The trial court entered judgment for respondent, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held there was no easement by implication because no evidence showed an obvious, permanent use of the claimed route before the parcels were divided in 1873. It also rejected an easement by necessity, reasoning that any such right arising from federal ownership was extinguished once the servient land passed to private owners, as the state then had eminent domain power to obtain access.

property

The case concerned American President Lines' challenge to additional registration fees assessed by the California DMV for its fleet of truck trailers under the International Registration Plan and Permanent Interstate Trailer System program for the years 1989-1991. APL had entered a special agreement with the DMV allowing a 20-month enrollment period and use of a vehicle-day calculation method instead of mileage to determine apportioned fees. The court held that the DMV incorrectly assessed fees for 1989 and 1990 under the agreement and miscomputed them for 1991, while affirming APL's right to pursue administrative mandamus procedures and its entitlement to prejudgment interest but vacating an award of attorney fees; it also directed termination of a parallel tax refund action. The reasoning centered on interpreting the agreement's terms regarding enrollment timing, base fleet calculations, audit rights, and the absence of penalties or interest for additional fees found due.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a class action by credit card customers against First Interstate Bank challenging late fees and overlimit fees assessed for missed payments or exceeded credit limits. The trial court found the fees invalid as liquidated damages under Civil Code section 1671(d) and awarded plaintiffs over $13 million, but the appellate court modified the judgment by reducing it by approximately $9 million. The reduction represented net finance charges the bank collected on delinquent and overlimit balances, which the court held the bank could retain because the credit card agreements allowed contractual interest to continue after breach and such charges did not offset the bank's actual damages. The court upheld the remaining award based on evidence that the fees exceeded the bank's actual costs from the breaches and did not meet the requirements for valid liquidated damages in consumer contracts.

business & regulatory

In People v. Jones, appellant Calvin Jones was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with a great bodily injury enhancement and findings on multiple prior felony convictions that enhanced his sentence. The sole issue on appeal was whether sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on two of the prior convictions (one for burglary and one for robbery), which were proven only through waiver forms indicating the defendant's intent to plead guilty or no contest. The court held that these forms did not constitute sufficient evidence of actual pleas entered in open court, as required, and reversed the findings on those two priors while reducing the total sentence from 17 years to 12 years. The reasoning emphasized that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence such as court records showing the pleas occurred, and no presumption of official duty could fill the gap without supporting instructions or evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners Gordon and Vera Gunderson suing their insurer Fire Insurance Exchange for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied a defense in a neighbor's lawsuit seeking to quiet title to an easement, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief over use of a gravel driveway. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, which the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the underlying complaint alleged no bodily injury or covered property damage, as it concerned only disputes over intangible property rights and easements rather than physical harm to tangible property, creating no potential for coverage under the policy's occurrence-based liability provisions. Without any duty to defend or indemnify, there was no breach of the insurance contract and thus no viable bad faith claim.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved appellant Tung Yiu Tai, who was charged with fraudulent use of a credit access card, forgery of a credit access card, and commercial burglary, along with allegations of prior felony convictions. A jury convicted Tai on all counts and found the allegations true, resulting in a four-year prison sentence. On appeal, the court considered challenges to the admission of expert testimony regarding Tai's attempts to disguise his handwriting in court-ordered exemplars and evidence of uncharged misconduct. The court held that evidence of efforts to disguise handwriting exemplars was admissible as consciousness of guilt and did not implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The judgment was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Michael and Mary Sutton, who sought underinsured motorist coverage under their policy for a 1989 Ford Taurus after Michael was injured in an accident while driving their separately insured 1989 Isuzu. Farmers Insurance tendered only the lower limits from the Isuzu policy, citing an exclusion barring coverage for bodily injury sustained while occupying another owned vehicle not insured under the Taurus policy. The trial court ruled for the Suttons, interpreting other policy provisions about multiple policies as allowing the higher Taurus limits. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plain language of the exclusion precluded coverage under the Taurus policy because the Isuzu was a separately owned and insured vehicle, and the "other insurance" clauses did not apply since the Taurus policy itself was inapplicable to the accident. The court reasoned that the parties had contracted for different coverage levels on each vehicle, consistent with Insurance Code section 11580.2, and that allowing the higher limits would improperly permit stacking not authorized by the policies.

business & regulatory

The case involved Daniel Hussey suing his union, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress arising from the union's representation of him in disciplinary proceedings that led to his termination from employment with Alameda County. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the union. The core reasoning was that the union's representation did not breach its duty of fair representation because its actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, there is no independent fiduciary duty owed by the union beyond that duty, and the union's conduct did not amount to egregious negligence.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute between the Communist Party of the United States of America and two public benefit corporations (522 Valencia, Inc. and Pacific Publishing Foundation, Inc.) along with their individual directors, who had disaffiliated from the Party in 1992. The Party claimed beneficial ownership of the corporations' assets, including real property and bank accounts, and sought their transfer via imposition of a constructive trust and application of the alter ego doctrine. The trial court ruled in the Party's favor, finding the corporations had been controlled by and held assets for the Party, and ordered the assets conveyed along with an accounting. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Party lacked standing to sue, there was no basis for a constructive trust, the alter ego doctrine was misapplied, and other procedural and evidentiary errors existed.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In People v. Dorsey, appellants Rodney Dorsey and Charles Hall were convicted by jury of second degree robbery and assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury after incidents involving the theft of victims' bags through physical struggles in San Francisco. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying a mistrial motion based on alleged juror misconduct, by refusing a jury instruction on grand theft as a lesser included offense of robbery, and (as to Dorsey) by imposing an ambiguous sentence. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the mistrial or refusing the lesser-included-offense instruction because the use of force elevated the offenses to robbery, and it remanded only Dorsey's case for resentencing while affirming the judgments in all other respects.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Longines, the defendant was convicted of selling marijuana and using a minor to sell marijuana based on an undercover drug purchase in which a 15-year-old acted as an intermediary between the buyer (a deputy sheriff) and the defendant. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that out-of-court statements by the minor were admissible either as non-hearsay or under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for using a minor because the statute prohibits hiring, employing, or using a minor in marijuana sales. The court rejected the argument that "use" requires an employment relationship, noting that the statute's disjunctive wording gives independent meaning to each term and that the facts showed the defendant used the minor to facilitate the transaction.

criminal law

The case involved a defendant charged with two misdemeanors who moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5; after the motion was denied, he sought a stay of trial pending his appeal to the superior court appellate department. The court considered whether a stay is automatic or discretionary when a defendant's suppression motion is denied. The statute explicitly requires a stay if the motion is granted but is silent on the denial scenario, while also providing for a pretrial appeal right and bail as of right, indicating that a stay is within the trial court's discretion rather than mandatory. Because the municipal court failed to exercise its discretion in denying the stay, the court issued a writ of mandate directing it to vacate its order and consider staying the trial pending the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Topa Insurance Company's appeal from an order denying discharge of a forfeited bail bond and from summary judgment entered in favor of the People after a defendant failed to appear following posting of a $20,000 bond. The court reversed, concluding that the trial court lost jurisdiction to enter summary judgment under former Penal Code sections 1305 and 1306 because the 90-day period after the 180-day forfeiture window had expired without the forfeiture being set aside. The core reasoning was that these statutes must be strictly construed and precisely followed, so the court's delays in handling motions and entering judgment caused automatic exoneration of the bond as a matter of law.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Garrett, appellant Jimmie Garrett was convicted by a jury of one count of threatening another person with immediate great bodily injury under Penal Code section 422 after calling his wife and stating he would put a bullet in her head; the jury deadlocked on a related charge of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. The trial court admitted evidence of Garrett's prior manslaughter conviction, past beatings of his wife, and possession of a gun to show the victim's knowledge and sustained fear. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and denied the habeas petition, reasoning that the evidence was relevant and probative to prove the statutory requirements of specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat and that the victim was placed in reasonable sustained fear, and that it was not barred as character evidence under Evidence Code section 1101 because it established elements of the offense rather than mere propensity.

criminal law

The case involved a licensed real estate broker, Doyle, who was sued for fraud and deceit in a real estate transaction; the parties settled with Doyle agreeing to pay $10,000 or face entry of a $15,000 stipulated judgment, which was entered after he failed to pay. The plaintiffs then successfully applied to the Department of Real Estate's Recovery Account for payment of the unsatisfied judgment based on fraud. Doyle petitioned for a writ of mandate arguing that the Commissioner lacked authority to approve the application because the judgment was stipulated rather than litigated. The court affirmed the denial of the writ, holding that the relevant statutes permit payment from the Recovery Account for a judgment based on fraud even if entered by stipulation, where the underlying complaint alleged only fraud and the application included supporting facts, as nothing in the law required denial of such claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Edward Charles Sykes, who was charged with burglarizing a music store and robbing a security guard employed by a neighboring business of a saxophone taken during the burglary. The court addressed whether the saxophone was taken from the security guard's person or immediate presence, as required for robbery under Penal Code section 211. The court decided that the robbery charge must be dismissed because the guard lacked actual or constructive possession of the saxophone. The core reasoning was that constructive possession requires a special relationship with the property owner, such as employment, which the guard did not have, and that a momentary drop of the item or the guard's intent to recover it on the owner's behalf did not create such possession.

criminal lawproperty

In this case, seaman Robert Hutchins sued vessel operators Juneau Tanker Corporation and OMI Corporation under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries from two ventral hernias sustained while performing strenuous duties on different ships, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. After settling with OMI for $55,000, a jury found Hutchins 53 percent at fault and Juneau 47 percent at fault for total damages of $434,533, resulting in a judgment against Juneau of about $149,000 after a pro tanto credit for the settlement. The trial court had excluded evidence of OMI's negligence or unseaworthiness and refused to instruct on allocating fault proportionally among all parties including the settling defendant. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that federal maritime law requires proportional allocation of fault to all tortfeasors rather than application of California's Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 pro tanto credit rule, and that evidence of the plaintiff's comparative fault in the subsequent injury and of the settling defendant's conduct must be admitted.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability