AJ12 Cal. Crim.Law

A. PURPOSES

1. To experience locating a case in a law library;

2. To read a case and distill its contents into a typewritten, double-spaced three page summary.

B. FORMAT OF PAPERS: FIVE SECTIONS

1. Procedure: A short section briefly describing the procedural status of the case such as an "appeal from a conviction" for burglary or a "writ of prohibition "taken from the dismissal of a complaint following granting of a demurrer."

2. Facts of the case: These is the description of the conduct that gives rise to the legal issue. For example, "defendant reached into the large refrigerator box that Ms Victoria slept in and removed her radio and cassette player."

3. Question: This is the legal issue that is to be answered by the opinion. For AJ 12, an issue will will involve defining a crime, determining a punishment, applying a defense or other substantive issue For example, with respect to the hypothetical above, an issue would be: "whether this was a residential (first degree) burglary?" Resolution of that issue is important because the range of punishment for residential burglary is higher than for second degree burglary, which has a higher range than petty theft. Many cases will have procedural, evidentiary, and substantive law questions. Identify the most important substantive law question if your case has more than one. The list of cases below provides indications as to the featured issue for purposes of this course.

4. Answer/holding: Since the issue is usually framed so as to be answered "yes" or "no," this section is a simple one word answer, "yes" or "no". Obviously, it is important to correctly state the issue in order to state an answer or holding. Another way to understand the holding is to ask how did the court decide the legal issue necessary to answer the question? For example, the question may be: did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury that, under certain circumstances, a large refrigerator box court may be a residence for purposes of the first degree burglary statute? The holding might be: A refrigerator box regularly slept in by a homeless person is (or is not) a structure protected by the first burglary statute. The court might conclude that this crime was a second degree burglary or that it was no burglary at all, but a petty theft.

5. Reasoning: This summarizes the legal reasoning utilized to reach its holding. Often the decision will turn upon how the court interprets words in a statute in light of the objective of the statute. In general, the reasoning is in the form of a syllogism. The major premise is often a statute; the minor premise consists of the the pertinent facts of the case. The conclusion involves whether these facts fit the statute. It may first be necessary to interpret the statute.

6. Result: This is what the court did after reaching its answer or holding. For example, "the judgment was reversed and remanded" to the lower for retrial or the conviction was upheld.

C. VERY SHORT SAMPLE: People v. Drun Kindriver (1997) 89 Cal.App.4th 1232.

1. Procedure. This case is on appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence.

2. Facts. Officer Dell E. Gent of the Pasadena Police Department found Defendant slumped over the wheel of his 1994 Buick Skylark that was slightly illegally parked at the side of eastbound Colorado Blvd. The radio was on; there was an open bottle of Jack Daniels in the car. The hood was warm on a cold rainy night. No one else was in the car. Kindriver failed his field sobriety tests, and blew a .20 on the intoxilyzer. After giving up his Miranda rights, he stated he remembered nothing about how he got there, but that he was alone all evening, as far as he knew. There were no witnesses to driving, but a waitress who worked nearby testified that no car was in that space 10 minutes before she saw the police pull up.

3. Issue/question. Was evidence sufficient to show Kindriver had driven the car?

4. Answer/Holding . Yes. Driving requires voluntary movement of a motor vehicle.

5. Reasoning. People v. Rendazzo (1993) 54 Cal.3d 1992 held that "driving" under the driving under the influence statute requires some voluntary movement of the motor vehicle at the instance in some matter of the person charged. (Major premise.) The evidence (minor premise) was circumstantial but substantially sufficient to support an inference that defendant drove while intoxicated.

6. Result. Defendant's conviction was affirmed.

Note: Be sure to attach a copy of your case to the research paper.

LIST OF ASSIGNED CASES

1. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356 [7], 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 [discriminatory enforcement]

2. People v. Brown (1894) 105 Cal. 66 [2] 38 P. 518 [intent to permanently deprive in theft]

3. People v. Hecker (1895) 109 Cal.451 [7], 42 P. 307 [rules of self-defense]

4. People v. Lewis (1899) 124 Cal. 551 [10], 57 P. 470 [causation of death]

5. People v. Beggs (1918) 178 Cal.79 [6], 172 P. 152 [extortion]

6. Lanzetta v. New Jersey (1939) 306 U.S. 451 [8], 59 S.Ct. 618, 83 L.Ed. 888[4^thA. vague]

7. People v. Ralph (1944) 194 Cal.2d 575 [9], 150 P.2d 401[interpretation rule of lenity]

8. People v. Stuart (1956) 47 Cal.2d 167 [10],302 P.2d 51[no strict liability misd/mans]

9. People v. Villa (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 128 [10], 318 P.2d 45 [presence, knowledge, and non-prevention relevant to a/abet]

10. People v. Borchers (1958) 50 Cal.2d 321 [10], 325 P.2d 97 [heat of passion in vol. mans.]

11. People v. Scott (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 458 [26: facts only; 464-489], 1 Cal.Rptr. 600 [no body, circumstantial evid. proved murder]

12. In Re Newbern (1960) 53 Cal.2d 786, 788-790; 792-798 [12], 3 Cal.Rptr. 364 [14^th A.]

13. Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660, 660-668 [9], 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 [conduct; not status]

14. People v. Rojas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 252 [10], 10 Cal.Rptr. 465[factual impossibility no def.]

15. People v. Fiene (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 305 [4], 37 Cal.Rptr. 925 [special statute prevail]

16. People v. Washington (1965) 62. Cal.2d 777, 779-785 [7], 44 Cal.Rptr. 442 [FM1 limit]

17. People v. Walls (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 543 [5], 49 Cal.Rptr. 82 [gross neg. inv. mans.]

18. People v. Roy (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 459 [8 460-467], 59 Cal.Rptr. 636 [conspirators]

19. People v. Curtis ( 1969) 70 Cal.2d 347 [15], 74 Cal.Rptr. 713 [battery if resist unlawful arrest made by lawful means]

20. People v. Anderson (1970) 70 Cal.2d 15[24], 73 Cal.Rptr. 550 [premeditation in M1]

21. People v. Newton (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 359 [359-378][20],87 Cal.Rptr. 394 [unconscious]

22. Taylor v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 578 [17], 91 Cal.Rptr.275 [prov. acts FM1]

23. People v. Staples (1970) 6 Cal.App.3dd 61[10] 85 Cal.Rptr.607[attempt]

24. People v. Hernandez (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 651[10], 96 Cal.Rptr. 71 [woman a/abet rape]

25. People v. Kelley (1973) 10 Cal.3d 565 [18], 111 Cal.Rptr.171[temporary insanity]

26. People v. Adami (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 452 [8], 111 Cal.Rptr. 544 [solicit not attempt]

27. People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143 [18], 125 Cal.Rptr. 745 [mistake fact in rape]

28. People v. Gauze (1975) 15 Cal.3ddd 709 [11], 125 Cal.Rptr. 773 [no burg. of own home]

29. People v. Malcolm (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 217 [7], 120 Cal.Rptr. 667 [auto burg. doors]

30. People v. Berry (1976) 18 Cal.3d 509[11], 134 Cal. Rptr. 415 [verbal prov. in vol. mans.]

31. People v. Williams (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 731[20,] 142 704 [a/abettor guilty when direct perp. not guilty],

32. People v. Burden (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 603 [22 ], 140 Cal.Rptr.282 [consc.disregard M]

33. People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675 [27], 153 Cal.Rptr.459 [entrapment]

34. People v. Rubin (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 968 [22], 158 Cal.Rptr. 488 [solicit, 1^st A.]

35. People v. Khoury (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1[7], 166 Cal.Rptr. 705[asportation]

36. People v. Mayers (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 809 [9]168Cal.Rptr. 252 [specific statute; no conspiracy if crime requires two people]

37. People v. Watson (1981) 30 C.3d 290 [22], 179 Cal.Rptr. 43, 637 [consc.disregard in M]

38. In re David (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 689 [6], 172 Cal.Rptr. 266 [actus reus]

39. Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981) 450 U.S. 464, 101 S.Ct. 1200, 67 L.Ed.2d 437 [gender based legislation]

40. People v. Superior Court (Engert) (1982) 31 Cal.3d 797 [10] 183 Cal. Rptr. 800 {14^th A. vague, special circ.]

41. In re Joseph G. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 429 [12], 194 Cal.Rptr. 163 [assisted suicide or M]

42. People v. Peppars (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 677, [13], 189 Cal.Rptr.879 [factually impossible target crime no def..to conspiracy]

43. People v. Scott (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 823[11 ],194 Cal.Rptr. 633 [mistake, hallucination, inv. intox.]

44. People v. Hays (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 534 [20], 195 Cal.Rptr.252 [robbery]

45. People v. Pena (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp.14, 17-28 [12], 197 Cal.Rptr. 264 [necessity]

46. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694 [18], 85 L.Ed.2d 1 [4^th A, use of deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspect]

47. People v. Beeman (1984) 35 Cal.4th 587 [16], 199 Cal. Rptr 60 [a/abet defined]

48. People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765 [22], 217 Cal.Rptr.685 [1843 M'Nagten restored]

49. People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284 [24], 228 Cal.Rptr. 228 [resistance not required for rape]

49. People v. Armitage (1987) 194 Cal.App.3dd 405 [20], 239 Cal.Rptr. 515 [prox. cause, foreseeability]

50. Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112 [33: 112-144], 253 Cal.Rptr. 1 [1^st A religion, parent duty to care for child]

51. People v. Superior Court (Caswell) (1988) 46 Cal.3d 381 [26], 250 Cal.Rptr. 515 [14^th A vague, due process]

52. Carrella v. California (1989) 491 U.S. 263, 109 S.Ct. 2419 [6], 105 L.Ed.2d 218 [no presumed intent at trial]

53. People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046 [12:1061-1070; 1100-110l-12], 259Cal.Rptr. 630 [torture M, mental state required]

54. People v. Patterson (1989) 49 Cal.3d 615 [16: 615-630]; 262 Cal.Rptr. 195 [inherently dangerous felony]

55. People v. Meeker (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 358 [6], 256 Cal. Rptr. 79 [lesser included]

56. People v. Griggs (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 734 [11], 265 Cal.Rptr. 53 [victim of assault]

57. United States v. Eichman (1990) 496 U.S. 310 [9], 110 S.Ct. 2404, 110 L.Ed.2d 287 [1^st A. re flag burning]

58. People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1167-1171 [5], 270 Cal.Rptr. 286 [sodomy requires live victim]

59. People v. Romo (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514 [7]269 Cal.Rptr. 440 [honest mistake in specific intent crime]

60. People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1158 [22], 282 Cal.Rptr.450[a/abet, completed elements]

61. People v. Garziano (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 241 [4]281 Cal.Rptr. 307 [necessity defense and abortion clinic trespassing protesters]

62. People v. Hibbard (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 145 [6], 282 Cal.Rptr. 351[consec. misds.]

63. People v. McCormack (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 253 [5], 285 Cal.Rptr. 504 [when intent in burglary formed]

64. People v. Mungia (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1703 [8], 286 Cal.Rptr. 394 [grand theft person, force in robbery]

65. People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271[14- 294-296, 311-313, 315-322, 6 Cal.Rptr. 276 [causation]

66. People v. Salemme (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 775 [12], 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 398 [any felony in burg.]

67. People v. Woods (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1570 [34], 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 231 [a/abet liable for reasonably foreseeable crimes]

68. People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134[16], 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 375 [lying in wait murder]

69. People v. Hansen (1994) 9 Cal.4th 300, [14: 304-317], 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 609 [discharge of firearm into house inherently dangerous]

70. Sea Horse Ranch, Inc. v. Superior Court (1194) 24 Cal.App.4th 446 [16],30 Cal.Rptr. 681 [when corporate officer individually liable for corporation's crime]

71. People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th 593 [20], 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390 [no conspiracy to commit implied malice M]

72. People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073 [16], 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 142 [batt. wom. synd.]

73. In re Megan R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 17 [11], 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 325 [minor female victim cannot a/abet statutory rape]

74. People v. Robles (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th Supp.1 [5], 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 369 [speech alone may impair lawful arrest]

75. People v. Davis (1998) 18 Cal.4th 712 [17], 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 770 [entry in burg.]

77. People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301 [11], 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295 [sale, refund, thefts]

78. People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236 [12] 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 [burg. intent upon entry for future crime]

78. People v. Tafunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935 [12], 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 143[claim of right to specific property only]

79. People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 665 [8], 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 647 [misd. dangerous as committed required for misd.mans.]

80. In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866 [16], 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 466 [determining whether statute is strict offense]

82. People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111 [7] 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 188 [a/abet more culpable than direct perp. of homicide]

83. People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834 [14], 11 Cal.Rptr.2d129 [prox. conc. cause M]

84. People v. Williams (2001) 26 Cal.4th 779 [10], 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 114 [assault gen. intent]

85. Ewing v. California (2003) __ U.S. __, 123 S.Ct. 1179 [22], 155 L.Ed.2d 108 [3 strikes not cruel and unusual]