Yes, there was a lot of action at this week’s Supreme Court conference, a double one. This is the third and final part of a summary of some highlights. Parts I and II are here and here.
DUI murder dissenting vote. The court denied review in People v. Woodfill, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to hear the case. The Fourth District, Division One, unpublished opinion affirmed a second degree murder conviction of the defendant for killing a pedestrian while drunk driving. The defendant unsuccessfully advanced three points as prejudicial error: (1) the refusal to modify a jury instruction about implied malice, (2) the failure to sua sponte instruct on either vehicular manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, and (3) allowing the People to show the jury a photograph of the victim while she was alive. Justice Liu didn’t explain his vote, so it’s not clear which issue or issues attracted his attention. (There’s a fairly simple cure for that: When a message vote’s message is muddled.) If I had to guess, I’d say it was issue number one. In October, Justice Liu signed on to an extended concurring statement by Justice Evans when the court denied review in another vehicular homicide case involving implied malice murder. (See here.) The issue continues to percolate below. (See: Wait for it: issue percolation, right vehicles, and legislative inaction.)
More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial. As in People v. Celis (reported about in Part II), Justices Liu and Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denial of review in People v. Perez, another unpublished opinion — this one by the Second District, Division Seven — rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed when older than 17 and younger than 26.
COVID vaccine refusal. The court denied review in Bedard v. City of Los Angeles. The Second District, Division Three, published opinion upheld the firing of a police officer for refusing to comply with a 2021 requirement that all city employees be vaccinated against COVID or apply for a medical or religious exemption. The opinion stated that the plaintiff’s “refusal to become vaccinated placed the public and her coworkers at risk of harm on a daily basis.”
