Skip to content

Sufficiency Evidence Gang Enhancements

Was the evidence sufficient to support the criminal street gang enhancements imposed under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)? On 4/21/2021, the court ordered the issues to be briefed and argued in this case limited to the following: When a member of a criminal street gang acts alone in committing a felony, what evidence will suffice to establish the felony…

Case: People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951
Case Number: S266854
Updated: August 25, 2022
Read more

Sufficiency of the Evidence–Conspiracy to Commit Murder for the Benefit of a Gang

Does sufficient evidence support Hoskins's Count 1 conviction for conspiracy to commit murder? [Editor's Note: Count 1 in this case alleged that multiple defendants conspired to commit murder (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a), 187) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) between January 1, 2012, and April 23, 2014. On appeal, it was undisputed that the…

Case: People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151
Case Number: S263923
Updated: December 1, 2022
Read more

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

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…

Case: People v. Bankston; People v. Hin
Case Number: S044739 (Bankston) / S141519 (Hin)
Updated: February 28, 2024
Read more

Whether Prosecution Expert is Permitted to Convey Testimonial Statements of Nontestifying Forensic Analyst Under Certain Conditions

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and…

Case: State v. Smith (Ariz.Ct.App. July 14, 2022, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0451) [nonpub. opn.], cert. granted 9/29/2023
Case Number: 22-899
Updated: September 29, 2023
Read more

Confrontation Clause–Admitting Codefendant’s Redacted Confession that Inculpates a Defendant

Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Held: Prosecutors have long tried criminal defendants jointly in cases where the defendants are alleged to have engaged in a common criminal scheme. However, when prosecutors seek to introduce a nontestifying…

Case: Samia v. United States (2023) __ U.S. __
Case Number: 22-196
Updated: June 23, 2023
Read more

SB 1437–Impermissible Judicial Factfinding by Relying on the Preliminary Hearing Transcript to Deny Petition at the Prima Facie Stage?

Did the trial court engage in impermissible judicial factfinding by relying on the preliminary hearing transcript to deny defendant’s Penal Code section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage? (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.) Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: Second District People v. Pickett (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 982, review granted…

Case: People v. Patton (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 649, review granted 6/28/2023
Case Number: S279670/B320352
Updated: March 27, 2024
Read more