Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file opinions in the last two undecided cases from the November calendar. In one of the cases, the court has signaled that it might take the relatively rare step of overruling one of its own opinions.
In Johnson v. California Department of Justice, the court faces the issue whether the equal protection principles of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 bar mandatory sex offender registration for a defendant convicted of oral copulation between a “person over the age of 21 years” and a “person who is under 16 years of age” (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2))?
The court asked for supplemental briefing with this order: Should the court overrule People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185? Among the subsidiary questions counsel may wish to address are the following: 1. What level of equal protection scrutiny applies to the statutory difference in sex offender registration requirements between those convicted of violating Penal Code section 288a and those convicted of violating Penal Code section 261.5? 2. Has Hofsheier presented practical difficulties of application in the trial and appellate courts? 3. Has Hofsheier been extended beyond the sex offender registration context in ways that could not have been anticipated at the time of the decision? 4. Absent the limitations on Hofsheier’s application asserted in People v. Manchel (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1108, the validity of which is challenged in the present case, what principles, if any, constrain the application of Hofsheier? 5. Does Hofsheier’s equal protection analysis logically extend beyond the context of sex offender registration? 6. If Hofsheier’s holding is overruled, would and should the court’s decision apply retroactively to offenders who have been convicted or released from custody since the decision in Hofsheier without registration orders or who have obtained relief by writ petition from preexisting registration requirements?
In Richey v. Autonation, Inc. the court is set to address these issues: (1) Is an employer’s honest belief that an employee was violating company policy or abusing medical leave a complete defense to the employee’s claim that the employer violated the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (Gov. Code §§ 12945.1, 12945.2)? (2) Was the decision below to vacate the arbitration award in the employer’s favor consistent with the limited judicial review of arbitration awards?
The opinions can be viewed tomorrow starting at 10:00 a.m.
