Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
August 7, 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.
People v. Escobar
Case No. A085837
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four
CRIMINAL-EVIDENCE-PRIOR ACTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF VICTIM'S STATE OF MIND
Escobar was convicted of the first degree murder of his wife. True findings were made that he personally used a firearm. At trial evidence of a 1992 incident of domestic violence was admitted and an instruction given on the use of this evidence. An instruction was not given on the requirement of proof by a preponderance of the evidence of the domestic violence incident. Evidence of Escobar's statements to a friend of her fear that her husband would kill her were also admitted.
HELD: The admission of relevant evidence will not offend due process unless the evidence is so prejudicial as to render the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair. Since admission of prior acts of domestic violence is also subject to the trial court’s discretion to exclude propensity evidence it does not offend due process. In this case any error in the giving of CALJIC No. 2.50.02 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no dispute whatsoever as to appellant’s identity as the killer of his wife. Indeed, he admitted that he shot Patricia three times at close range and then, in the presence of his daughters, walked over and shot his wife a fourth time. It was also plainly within the discretion of the trial court to admit testimony for the purpose of impeaching Escobar's claims about his wife's state of mind in the garage on the night she was killed. Affirmed.
People v. Clark
Case No. E025550
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two
CRIMINAL-CIVIL COMMITMENT AS MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER-SELF INCRIMINATION PRIVILEGE
Clark was paroled after serving a term for a plea of guilty to grand theft from the person and admitting a prior conviction for robbery. When changing her plea she stated that she was taking Lithium. On her release she was detained as a Mentally Disordered Offender. At her requested hearing she was called as a witness by the prosecution and required to testify about her mental state and behavior when committing the underlying offense.
HELD: Two distinct and separate testimonial privileges are covered by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. In criminal cases, there is an absolute right not to be called or to testify as a witness, and in both civil and criminal cases, one cannot be required to answer questions that might tend to incriminate the witness in criminal activity. Clark's testimony did not violate these state and federal constitutional guarantees. She had already pled guilty to and served her sentence for the underlying crime. Her testimony was being sought only as evidence of her status as an MDO presently dangerous and in need of mental health treatment, not to punish her further for past behavior. There was sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that she used force or violence in the underlying offense, and that her severe mental disorder was a factor in committing her underlying crime. All the elements for a civil commitment as a MDO were proved. Affirmed.
State Board of Equalization v. Woo
Case No. A088646
California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four
ORDER
Modification of opinion filed on July 20, 2000, not affecting the judgment.
United States v. Nanthanseng
Case No. 99-30137
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
CRIMINAL-SENTENCING-GROUPING OF OFFENSES INVOLVING THE SAME VICTIM-CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIME
Nanthanseng was a member of a street gang suspected of a robbery of a guns store and murder of the owner. An informant purchased crack cocaine from him. A search of his residence produced a firearm, which was one of a hundred taken in a store robbery. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, crack, and marijuana and one count of conspiracy to possess and sell stolen firearms. The district court calculated the offense level for the drug count to be 34 and the offense level for the firearms count to be 27, but declined to group the offenses pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines.
HELD: The sentencing guidelines provides that all counts involving substantially the same harm should be grouped together into a single Group for purposes of calculating the offense level pertaining to a multiple-count conviction. When multiple counts fall outside of a single Group the imposition of a discounted enhancement must be based on the number and severity of the counts that fall outside that Group. Nanthanseng could not show that the offenses threatened closely related societal interests and thus constructively involved the same victim. Affirmed.
Unocal v. United States
Case Nos. 99-55342/99-55381
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
OTHER-OIL POLLUTION ACT-AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES-PREJUDGMENT INTEREST
While constructing a Metrolink extension a Union Oil Co. of California pipeline was ruptured. Unocal sued Metrolink for reimbursement of the cleanup costs. Judgment was for Unocal based on negligence, breach of contract and quasi-contract theories, and pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act.
HELD: To prevail on its claim Unocal was required to show that Metrolink or other third parties were the sole cause of the spill and its consequences, that Unocal exercised due care (prior to the spill and during its containment), and that Unocal took necessary precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. The Court concluded that Unocal presented substantial evidence at trial to meet these burdens, and that the jury's verdict should stand. The goal of Unocal's suit was merely to shift the burden of paying for the cleanup from Unocal to Metrolink. Unocal was not acting as a private attorney general in this case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees on this ground. The award of interest at 5.87% was an appropriate rate. Affirmed.
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page