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: 20220825
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: 20221201
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) 599 U.S. 635 [143 S.Ct. 2004]
Case Number: 22-196
Updated: 20230623
Read more

Retroactivity of PC § 352.2, 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). In Bankston, on 6/11/25, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of whether harmless error analysis applies to RJA violations under Penal…

Case: People v. Bankston; People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401; People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629
Case Number: S044739 (Bankston) / S141519 (Hin)
Updated: 20250828
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.) Held: The trial court may rely on the prosecution's unchallenged citations to the preliminary hearing transcript to determine whether a prima facie case…

Case: People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549
Case Number: S279670
Updated: 20250319
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 non-testifying 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: Smith v. Arizona (2024) 602 U.S. 779 [219 L.Ed.2d 420]
Case Number: 22-899
Updated: 20240621
Read more

Is loose marijuana in a car an open container violation, and does this affect the probable cause analysis?

The issues to be briefed and argued are as follows: 1. Does the presence of 0.36 grams of loose marijuana on the floor of a vehicle constitute an open container violation under Health & Safety Code, section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4)? 2. Does the answer to this question affect whether there was probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the…

Case: Sellers v. Superior Court (2026) 19 Cal.5th 75
Case Number: S287164/C100036
Updated: 20260129
Read more

Whether state habeas procedures procedurally barred the Court from reviewing a Napue error?

This case presents the following questions: 1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264…

Case: Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226 [145 S.Ct. 612]
Case Number: 22-7466
Updated: 20250225
Read more

Is a grand jury transcript admissible at a 1172.6 evidentiary hearing?

This case presents the following issue: Is a transcript of grand jury proceedings admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing? Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in: First District People v. Superior Court (Bustos-Montes) (A172776) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 8/13/2025 (S291507)

Case: People v. Robinson (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 854, mod. 107 Cal.App.5th 245a, review granted 2/26/25 (S288606)
Case Number: S288606/C098299
Updated: 20250813
Read more

PC 1172.6 (d)(3) hearing – admissibility of an officer’s preliminary hearing testimony recounting a codefendant’s statements

Did the trial court err by finding that an officer’s preliminary hearing testimony recounting a codefendant’s statements was admissible at a Penal Code section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing under the declarations against interest exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1230)?

Case: People v. Pineda (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 369, review granted 7/29/26
Case Number: S296909/B343654
Updated: 20260729
Read more