Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
June 23, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
LaJoie v. Thompson
Case No. 98-35919
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ORDER-CRIMINAL-REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE OF EVIDENCE OF PAST SEXUAL ABUSE
The opinion and dissenting opinion filed on January 31, 2000, and reported at 201 F.3d 1166, were withdrawn and the amended opinion and amended dissenting opinion attached to the order shall be filed in their place. LaJoie was convicted of rape, sodomy, and sexual abuse of a minor child, "VN." At trial evidence of VN's past sexual abuse by others was excluded, pursuant to Oregon's rape shield law, for failure to give the required 15-day notice of intent to introduce such evidence. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.
HELD: A federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus if the relevant state-court decision was either (1) contrary to clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants `a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Restrictions on a criminal defendant's right to confront witnesses and to present relevant evidence may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve. The interests of the State and VN do not outweigh LaJoie's interest in introducing relevant evidence of the past sexual abuse VN had suffered. LaJoie's Sixth Amendment rights were violated, because the sanction of preclusion of this evidence in this case was "arbitrary and disproportionate to the purposes of the 15-day notice requirement. Reversed and remanded.
People v. Elsey
Case No. C027915
California Court of Appeal, Third District
CRIMINAL-BURGLARY-ENTRY INTO SEPARATE ROOMS WITHIN SCHOOL COMPOUND
Elsey was convicted of six counts of second degree burglary based upon his entry into five classrooms and the main office area of a middle school. The court instructed the jury that each classroom and the main office constituted a separate building for purposes of the burglary statute.
HELD: The California burglary statute defines burglary as the entry into any room with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony. The entry by Elsey into separate rooms, which were assigned to different people, locked to the outside, and largely located in separate buildings on the school campus constituted separate burglaries within the plain meaning of the statue. The use of the word, "room," in the burglary statute was intended to broaden the definition of burglary, not constrict it. Affirmed.
Krusi v. Amoroso Construction
Case No. A086602
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two
REAL PROPERTY-STANDING OF SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR REAL PROPERTY TO SUE FOR CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE
In 1995 Krusi purchased a two-story commercial building. In 1996 they filed suit against the architects and contractors who designed and constructed the building in 1985-1987, alleging improper design and/or construction. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment on the basis that Krusi, the fourth owners of the building, lacked standing to sue.
HELD: A duty may run from an architect, engineer or contractor to a subsequent owner of real property. It does not mean that, in a case implicating damage to such property, once a cause of action in favor of a prior owner accrues, another cause of action against the same defendant or defendants can accrue to a subsequent property owner-unless, of course, the damage suffered by that subsequent owner is fundamentally different from the earlier type. When an owner of a building suffers harm because of inadequate design of or engineering or construction work performed on a building, a cause of action accrues to that owner. The owner may choose to deliberately transfer that cause of action to another, but without some clear manifestation of such an intention, the cause of action is not transferred to a subsequent owner. Affirmed.
People v. Channing
Case No. E026018
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two
CRIMINAL-SEARCH AND SEIZURE-REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY-OFFICER'S TRESPASS TO GET TO OBSERVATION POINT
Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, Officer Wickum went to the remote mountain area where Channing lived. The officer trespassed into defendant's property by about 200 feet and had to traverse through a lot of trees and rocks to get to his observation point. His observation was made from outside the curtilage. He believed that marijuana was being grown behind a green tarp behind Channing's trailer. When he contacted Channing he was told by him that he had a constitutional right to grow marijuana. Wickum obtained a search warrant and marijuana plants were found growing under the green tarp and other places. Channing's motion to suppress was granted.
HELD: The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that the officer trespassed to get to his observation point die not render the officer's observation unconstitutional simply because he or she trespassed to get to the observation point. The officer made his observation from a vantage point he had a legal right to be at. Reversed.
King v. Walsh
Case No. D032696
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One
REAL PROPERTY-RESTRICTIVE EASEMENT-RANCHO SANTA FE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT-DISCRETION OF BOARD TO MAKE DECISIONS RELATING TO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT-AESTHETIC RESTRICTIONS-LIMITATION ON EXERCISE OF POWER OF BOARD
The Rancho Santa Fe Art Association rejected Dolan-King's proposed plans for home additions and a perimeter fence on her property. Dolan-King sued the Association for declaratory relief. The trial court declared the Association's rejection of the plans arbitrary and an abuse of power and entered judgment in Dolan's favor.
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page