Yesterday, we reported on a bunch of Supreme Court conference actions, excluding some notable review denials without dissenting votes. Here are those denials.
Review denied: discriminatory jury selection
The court will not hear People v. Espiritu. A 2-1 Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal published opinion reversed a conviction for various sex crimes against a minor because the superior court failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, which the Legislature enacted “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.” (See here.)
The Division Three majority faulted the superior court for not taking the “critical, legislatively mandated step” of “evaluat[ing] proffered reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge [by] mak[ing] a meaningful inquiry into whether any of the proffered reasons may be presumptively invalid, ensuring the record reflects its process.” It reversed because section 231.7 provides that the erroneous denial of an objection to a peremptory challenge “shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.”
The dissent agreed the superior court erred, but asserted the statute’s automatic-reversal command violates article VI, section 13, of the California Constitution, which bars a reversal unless “the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”
The Supreme Court should issue its first section 231.7 opinion by August 3, in People v. SanMiguel (see here and here; and oral argument video here).
Review denied: $41 million judgment reversed
The court denied review in Soulliere v. Suzuki Motor Corporation, a motorcycle products liability case, after the Fourth District, Division Three, in an unpublished opinion, reversed a judgment of $11 million compensatory and $30 million punitive damages. Division Three ordered a new trial on liability and only compensatory damages.
Liability needs to be retried because Division Three held the superior court erroneously excluded a police officer’s testimony, based on his accident report, about his conversation with the plaintiff; the testimony “was admissible as a past recollection recorded.” It eliminated punitive damages from the case because there was insufficient evidence of the defendant’s financial condition.
Horvitz & Levy was appellate counsel for the defendant.
A fuller discussion of the case appears on Horvitz & Levy’s California Punitive Damages blog.
Review denied: independent sheriff oversight approved
The court’s docket will not include Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office. The partially published opinion of the First District, Division Five, held that the plaintiff was a statutory sheriff oversight board and had the authority to issue subpoenas to sheriff employees regarding a whistleblower complaint.
Review denied: second amendment challenge rejected
The court denied review in People v. Hardy, in which a Second District, Division Six, published opinion found meritless arguments that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment barred the defendant’s convictions — after guilty pleas — for unlawful assault weapon activity, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, possession of a silencer, unlawful large capacity magazine activity, and unlawful transfer of a handgun with no licensed firearms dealer.
Review denied: rejection of religious exemption to vaccination requirement
The court also declined to hear Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. The unpublished opinion of the Second District, Division Five, affirmed a summary judgment against a soap opera actor who claimed that his employer didn’t accommodate his religious objection to a mandatory COVID vaccination policy and that he was wrongly fired in retaliation for his political commentary.
Division Five held that the plaintiff “refused to provide additional information establishing that his beliefs were religious for the purposes of accommodation” and that the ones who decided the plaintiff had “failed to show he was entitled to a vaccine exemption and terminated his employment for failing to comply with [the] vaccine policy were unaware of his political commentary.”
