Yesterday’s Supreme Court weekly conference was lighter than most, yielding rulings on “only” 74 matters. None was a straight grant. With the court’s vacancy still unfilled, it was another conference with just six justices participating.
Life without parole commutation recommended
See: Another LWOP commutation greenlighted.
Another grant-and-transfer regarding noneconomic damage limitation in revived childhood sexual assault cases
The court granted review in Defendant Doe 1, Diocese v. Superior Court and sent the case back to the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal to decide the merits of a writ petition that Division Five had summarily denied.
The issue is the same as in Plaintiffs in JCCP 5108, In re Northern California Clergy Cases v. Superior Court, in which the Supreme Court granted and transferred in December (see here) — whether Proposition 51, a 1986 initiative that limits a defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages to only those that are “in direct proportion to [a] defendant’s percentage of fault,” applies in AB 218 cases with causes of action accruing before Prop 51’s passage. AB 218, enacted in 2019, revived many otherwise time-barred claims of childhood sexual assaults. The Defendant Doe 1 plaintiff claims he “suffered clergy abuse in 1981.”
The only apparent difference between Defendant Doe 1 and Plaintiffs in JCCP 5108 is that the superior courts in the cases made opposite rulings. In the former, the trial court ruled Prop 51 doesn’t apply to pre-Prop 51 cases, while the court in the latter said Prop 51 does apply in those cases.
The Defendant Doe 1 petition for review was submitted to the Supreme Court six days late and filed with the court’s permission. (See: Getting relief for a late petition for review might not be a hopeless cause.)
Racial Justice Act OSC
The court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, in the pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Barraza. Cause is to be shown “why petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e)(5) [providing for the appointment of counsel for an indigent petitioner who pleads a plausible allegation of a violation of the Racial Justice Act [see here, here, and here]] in light of statistical data cited by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in Los Angeles County and to the disclosure of discovery pursuant to Penal Code, section 745, subdivision (d) [providing for the disclosure of evidence relevant to a potential violation of the Racial Justice Act in the possession or control of the state].”
The court has made many orders like this before. (See here and, recently, here.)
Dissenting vote: rape lesser included offense
Justice Joshua Groban recorded a dissenting vote from the denial of review in People v. Gallardo. The Fourth District, Division One, in a published opinion, affirmed the defendant’s conviction of rape of an unconscious person and assault with intent to commit rape.
Rejecting an argument for reversal of the assault conviction, Division One held “assault with intent to commit rape of an unconscious person is not a lesser included offense of rape of an unconscious person.” Its ruling was based on the conclusion that “the element of intent to use force, which is required for assault with intent to commit rape, is not an element of rape of an unconscious person.”
Own-motion review denied: AG concession of error in allowing peremptory juror challenge
In People v. Archie, the Attorney General conceded a voluntary manslaughter conviction should be reversed because the prosecution was improperly allowed to peremptorily challenge a Hispanic prospective juror in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The Legislature said it enacted the statute “to put into place an effective procedure for eliminating the unfair exclusion of potential jurors based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or perceived membership in any of those groups, through the exercise of peremptory challenges.”
Accepting the concession, and rejecting arguments by amicus San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office that there was no error and that section 231.7’s requirement of mandatory reversal violates the California Constitution, the Fourth District, Division One, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the conviction. There was no petition for review, but the DA asked the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion. The court denied the request.
The Supreme Court is poised to address section 231.7 in People v. SanMiguel, review granted in December 2024. (See here.)
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were two criminal case grant-and-holds: one each for People v. Hughey (see here) and People v. Dixon (see here).
