Skip to content
Name: People v. Suazo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 681
Case #: F082140
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/19/2023

A predrinking intent to drive is not required before a jury may find implied malice supporting a second degree Watson murder (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290). Defendant, while intoxicated, drove his vehicle at a high rate of speed off the highway and into an area occupied by an adjacent tractor supply business. When the vehicle hit agricultural equipment the passenger was ejected and killed. Defendant fled. He was convicted of second degree implied malice Watson murder, as well as other counts. He appealed. Held: Remanded for resentencing. Defendant contended the evidence was insufficient to support his murder conviction,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Marquez (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1212
Case #: G061264
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

In a prosecution for elder theft by a noncaretaker (Pen. Code, § 368(d)), trial court properly omitted an instruction that the prosecution must prove a defendant's noncaretaker status because this is not an element of the crime. Marquez was convicted of eight counts of elder theft as a noncaretaker. The trial court instructed the jurors on the elements of the offense: (1) the commission of a theft; (2) the victim was an elder; (3) the amount stolen was greater than $950; and (4) it was known, or reasonably should have been known, that the victim was at least 65 years…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Valencia
Case #: G023666
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/12/2001
Subsequent History: Review granted 5/16/01 (S095385)

Editor's Note: Review granted. There was insufficient evidence of burglary where appellant removed the screen from the window of the victim's home, but did not succeed in prying the window open. No part of appellant's body was inside the premises, and appellant never penetrated the air space of the interior, only the space between the screen and the window. A jury instruction which defined entry as including where an object under the defendant's control invades the space between the screen and window, was erroneously given. Appellant could only be guilty of attempted burglary as a matter…

View Full Summary