Skip to content
Name: People v. Felix (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 439
Case #: B317938
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 03/07/2024
Subsequent History: Opn. modified 3/12/2024

Defendant, who was a foreign national driving a car that belonged to a third party, was lawfully detained while an officer made further inquiries of the dispatcher performing the records check for defendant and the owner of the vehicle. Following a valid traffic stop in Utah, Felix provided an officer with an identification card from Mexico and vehicle registration in the name of a third party from California. He was detained approximately 12 minutes while the officer performed a records check and asked dispatch for additional information. The officer then obtained consent to search the vehicle just prior to dispatch…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Villegas (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 253
Case #: A164370
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/15/2023

Counsel was not ineffective in failing to seek exclusion of defendant’s second statement to police where defendant waived his right to remain silent and then failed to clearly assert this right during questioning before making incriminating statements. Defendant was questioned as to sexual offenses against two alleged victims, waived his Miranda rights, made incriminating statements, and was arrested. Police then learned of a third alleged victim and questioned defendant a second time a couple days later. He waived his Miranda rights a second time and admitted making a “mistake,” but said he would not say anything else. Police detailed the…

View Full Summary
Name: Samia v. United States (2023) __ U.S. __ [143 S.Ct. 2004]
Case #: 22-196
Court: US Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/23/2023

Majority opinion: Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined.
Concurring opinion: Justice Barrett joined the majority opinion in part and filed a separate opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Dissenting opinions: Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.

The confrontation clause does not bar the admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the codefendant and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction.

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Potter
Case #: C088889
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/13/2021

Defendant was not in custody, requiring warnings under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, where he had gone to the police station voluntarily, the police told him he was not under arrest, and the questioning was not unduly contentious. An officer called defendant, telling defendant that his daughter had alleged he had sexually abused her. Defendant agreed to meet with officers at the police station to take a polygraph. During a two hour period, made up of three separate interviews (two of which were recorded), defendant made incriminating statements. His cell phone was also taken to be analyzed. Defendant…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Matthew W.
Case #: A159931
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/08/2021

Juvenile court erred in admitting pre-arrest statements under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 326, where police created a coercive atmosphere in minor's home such that a reasonable 17-year-old would have experienced a restraint tantamount to arrest. Following the stabbing of a person around midnight, five armed and uniformed police arrived at 17-year-old minor's home at around 6:00 a.m. Three officers entered the home with the mother's permission, but denied her request to be present during questioning. No Miranda advisements were given. The juvenile court sustained the allegation that minor committed assault with a deadly weapon and personally inflicted great…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lopez
Case #: B305783
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 06/14/2021

The trial court abused its discretion in concealing the names of prospective jurors from counsel, but the error was harmless. Lopez was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and gross vehicular manslaughter (§ 191.5, subd. (a)) for crashing into a parked car while driving under the influence of alcohol and killing the sole occupant. During voir dire, the trial court withheld from the attorneys the names of prospective jurors, identifying them only by their badge number, out of a concern the attorneys or a member of the public or press would obtain additional information about the jurors…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Henderson
Case #: S098318
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/30/2020

Opinion By: Justice Corrigan (unanimous decision)
Trial court prejudicially erred by admitting defendant's statements to police after his clear request for counsel, following his initial waiver of his Miranda rights. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances, premeditated attempted murder, other offenses, enhancements, and priors. He received a death sentence. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to exclude his statements to police from evidence at the preliminary hearing and his trial. The trial court found that defendant validly waived his Miranda rights and did not thereafter unambiguously invoke his right to counsel. On review, defendant challenged the admission of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: B291137
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/23/2019

Trial court properly admitted defendant's un-Mirandized statements to an undercover informant regarding a gang-related shooting that defendant made while in jail on an unrelated matter. Defendant, a gang member, shot and wounded a man. While he was in jail on an unrelated offense, police placed an informant in his cell. He made incriminating statements to the informant, which were recorded. No Miranda warning was given. The trial court denied defendant's motion to exclude his statements and the recording was played for the jury. Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and other crimes. On appeal he argued admission of the recording…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Keo
Case #: B286844
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 09/23/2019

No Miranda warning was required where defendant made incriminating statements to a social worker who was conducting a dependency investigation because social workers are not law enforcement officers. Defendant was convicted of criminal threats and the second degree murder of his girlfriend, with whom he had two children. On appeal he claimed violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights because the trial court admitted un-Mirandized custodial statements he made to a social worker who was performing a dependency investigation and who questioned him without an attorney present. Held: Affirmed. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: G055861
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/12/2019

An "unprovoked headlong flight" in a high crime area, without more, does not provide reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative detention. A team of police officers was investigating a residential alleyway where gang activity had been reported. Flores was seen "running from the alley," recognized from prior contacts, and detained because he was "the closest one [police] could get." He was not arrested or handcuffed. An officer testified Flores was not the suspect of a crime and not in the process of committing a crime. An officer asked Flores about a bulge in his sock. He replied it was meth…

View Full Summary