Skip to content

Retroactivity of PC § 352.2 (Added by AB 2799), Which limits the Admissibility of Creative Expressions

Case Name: People v. Bankston; People v. Hin
Case #: S044739 (Bankston) / S141519 (Hin)
Last Updated: February 28, 2024

People v. Bankston and People v. Hin, both automatic appeals, include an issue involving the retroactivity of the provision in Assembly Bill No. 2799 (Stats. 2022, ch. 973) limiting the admissibility of creative expressions (Evid. Code, § 352.2).

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

Third District

  • People v. Perez (C095466) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 8/9/2023 (S280797)
  • People v. Slaton (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 363, review granted 11/15/2023 (S282047/C096437)

Fourth District

  • People v. Venable (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 445, review granted 5/17/2023 (S279081/E071681)
  • People v. Ramos (D074429) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 7/12/2023 (S280073)
  • People v. Casarrubias (G060529) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 9/20/2023 (S281299)

Fifth District

  • People v. Martinez (F079274) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/14/2023 (S279680)
  • People v. Stafford (F083132) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 10/25/2023 (S281826)
  • People v. Cerpa (F084669) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 12/13/2023 (S282574)
  • People v. Foreman (F084001) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/28/2024 (S283516)
  • People v. Nichols (F083958) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 2/28/2024 (S283484)

Sixth District

  • People v. Serrano (H047310) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 11/29/2023 (S282452)
Link to Article