Skip to content
Name: People v. Therman
Case #: C077322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/20/2015

Trial court properly imposed a five-year domestic violence protective order prohibiting the defendant from having contact with his wife (Pen. Code, § 136.2, subd. (i)) after he pled guilty to falsely imprisoning her (Pen. Code, § 236). Therman was charged with residential burglary, making criminal threats, and inflicting corporal injury on his spouse. He pled no contest to false imprisonment. The prosecutor stated that the factual basis for the plea was that false imprisonment was reasonably related to the crime of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in that Therman used "force and/or violence [to] force his spouse to stay…

View Full Summary
Name: Raich v. Gonzales
Case #: 03-15481
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 03/14/2007

Injunctive relief from the federal Controlled Substances Act is not available on a claim of common law doctrine of necessity. Raich is seriously ill with life-threatening conditions that can be treated only with marijuana. Her physician provided credible, non-contested evidence that other treatments were unavailable and that without marijuana, Raich would be in excrutiating pain and, because of a wasting condition, could die. Raich brought this action to prevent enforcement of the Act against her. The court denied relief because the common law necessity defense is an affirmative defense to protect from criminal liability but cannot…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Englebrecht
Case #: D033527
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/09/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant and 28 other named gang members were enjoined from engaging in various activities within a designated area of Oceanside. They appealed, arguing that they were denied their right to a jury trial on the issue of gang membership, and by deciding the case based on a preponderance of evidence rather than a clear and convincing standard of proof. The appellate court held that due process did not require a jury trial, since appellant's liberty was not at stake. However, the trial court erred in failing to require the government prove its case by clear and convincing…

View Full Summary