Areas Constitutional Law

Name: Jordan v. Superior Court
Case #: A174922
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/30/2026

After a defendant is found incompetent and placed on an outpatient treatment program, due process does not require a full evidentiary hearing for every PC 1608 revocation. The conditional release program petitioned to revoke defendant's outpatient status based on noncompliance, and the trial court transferred petitioner to the Department of State Hospitals without a full evidentiary hearing. Although now moot, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue as capable of repetition yet evading review. Applying the Mathews balancing test, the Court reasoned that written clinical reports reduce the risk of error and that the government’s interest in timely competency restoration,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Miranda
Case #: B346902
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/13/2026

Dirk or dagger prohibition (PC 21310) is constitutional under the Second Amendment. Appellant was convicted of vandalism and carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (PC 21310) after he broke into a vehicle, fled with a long knife concealed in his waistband, and dropped it when confronted by police. Appellant raised a facial Second Amendment challenge to PC 21310. Applying the “text and history” test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, the Court of Appeal found PC 21310 is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of regulating concealed arms.

Additionally, even though a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Maldonado
Case #: B340015
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 08/11/2026

Appellant’s absence from a pretrial competency hearing did not constitute reversible constitutional error. Where defense counsel waived a live hearing and submitted on an expert’s report opining that appellant was competent, appellant’s absence did not prejudice his rights to cross-examination or due process. Alternatively, any such error was harmless. A concurring opinion would find no constitutional error and would not reach the issue of prejudice.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McAlister
Case #: G064690
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/07/2026

PC 1172.75 (d)(4) permits a trial court to reimpose the upper term —even in the absence of a jury finding or stipulation —if the court previously imposed the upper term. Contrary to the holding in People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, the plain meaning of PC 1172.75(d)(4) does not create a potential Sixth Amendment violation because no judicial factfinding is involved in reimposing a term previously stipulated to by the defendant. Additionally, applying a rational basis review, this interpretation does not violate the Equal Protection clause because the Legislature had reasonable grounds for treating section 1172.75 different from other…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of E.A.
Case #: S287241
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 07/23/2026

One year delay of conservatorship trial was a denial of due process, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial on the issue of grave disability must commence within ten days of its demand. Here, the jury trial was delayed almost a year. Applying the four-factor test in Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, the California Supreme Court found that E.A. was denied due process. However, the denial was harmless because there was no reasonable doubt that the trial court would have found E.A. gravely disabled had the delay not occurred.

The full opinion is available on…

View Full Summary
Name: Muradyan v. Bonta
Case #: B346081
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/15/2026

Lifetime sex registration for violators of PC 288.4(b) does not violate equal protection. Appellant's conviction for PC 288.4(b), luring a minor, subjected him to tier three lifetime sex offender registration under the 2021 amendments to section 290. Appellant's petition to remove his name from the registry was denied and the reviewing court affirmed, finding that the preparatory and predatory nature of child luring is a rational basis to distinguish it from other crimes.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. DePape
Case #: A170759
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/30/2026

Statutory double jeopardy prevented state prosecution after the defendant was convicted in federal court for offenses arising from the same incident. The physical act supporting the federal assault charge — striking the victim in the head with a hammer — was the same physical act required to prove state charges of attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and elder abuse, even though some elements were different and the penalty for the state offenses exceeded the federal penalty. Defendant was permitted to demonstrate this through judicial notice of federal court records because they were offered only to prove what was…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Chhuon and Pan
Case #: S105403
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/01/2026

Defendant Pan’s convictions and death sentence reversed where trial counsel conceded guilt on second degree murder despite Pan’s expressed desire to maintain complete innocence (McCoy error). The Court rejected defendant Chhuon’s RJA error claims based on prosecution references to his family being Cambodian immigrants and Buddhists, his targeting of Asian victims, and his being a “predator”, either finding no error or finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the violation did not contribute to the judgment.

Other holdings: 1) murder charges from separate counties properly joined; 2) no error in deeming witness unavailable (EC 1291) after reasonable prosecution efforts to locate; 3) numerous…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Molina
Case #: H053224
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/26/2026

Lifetime PC 290 registration requirement for PC 288(c)(1) convictions does not violate equal protection. While PC 288(a) violations only require 20-year registration, the Legislature could rationally have concluded that those convicted of PC 288(c)(1) – where defendants must be at least 10 years older than the victims – are “less likely to reform” than people who violate PC 288(a). A 2024 CASOMB report recommends the Legislature change the PC 288(c)(1) registration requirement to 20 years, but does not demonstrate that the Legislature lacked a rational basis for its current requirement.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cardenas
Case #: B341680
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/26/2026

The statutory and constitutional right to make a closing argument to the jury applies to a jury finding on aggravating circumstances under PC 1170(b)(2). A trial court must allow a defendant who exercises his right to a jury trial under PC 1170(b)(2) the opportunity to argue to the jury what findings it should make as to alleged aggravating circumstances. The trial court may impose reasonable limitations on argument, but may not eliminate it altogether. Analytically, it appears that the error is not structural error, but the Court of Appeal need not decide that here because even under Chapman, the error…

View Full Summary