Skip to content
Name: People v. Kenney (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 516
Case #: D079227
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/22/2023

The trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss charges of resisting a peace officer where the deputy verbally informed defendant of the existence of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) prior to lawfully removing him from the home. Kenney was inside his mother’s home in violation of a temporary DVRO that had not yet been served. Deputies, from outside Kenney’s locked bedroom door, advised him that there was a restraining order on file and that he was not allowed to be there. After Kenney refused to come out, deputies forced the door open and arrested Kenney. He…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Velazquez
Case #: B223730
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/29/2011

Under Penal Code section 1118.1, a defense motion for acquittal must be granted if the prosecution has failed to present a prima facie case during its case-in-chief. Appellant was charged with and convicted of three counts of Penal Code section 422 and three counts of section 136.1, subd. (b) (dissuading a witness), for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, sec. 186.22, subds. (b)(1), (b) (4)), and sentenced to life terms. At trial, a police officer testified that he interviewed the victim on March 3, and that she was very upset. During the interview, the victim…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Riley
Case #: D054660
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/14/2010

After defendant has made a Penal Code section 1118.1 motion for acquittal, a trial court has the discretion to allow the prosecution to reopen its case to present evidence inadvertently omitted that goes to an element of the offense. Appellant, a teacher at a state prison, was charged with Penal Code section 4573.6 (possession of marijuana in state prison) after correctional officers retrieved her purse while she was teaching a class of inmates and searched it and found .43 grams of marijuana. At trial, at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, appellant made a motion for acquittal under section…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hernandez
Case #: E047219
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/26/2010

Where the initial misdemeanor complaint alleging driving under the influence is dismissed and a felony complaint/information alleging the same offense, but with prior convictions, is then filed, Penal Code section 1387 does not bar prosecution of the offense when the prior conviction required for felony driving under the influence is stricken, thereby returning the offense to a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor complaint charged appellant with driving under the influence; but when the People discovered appellant had prior driving under the influence convictions that elevated the offense to a felony, they dismissed the complaint (Pen. Code, sec. 1385) and filed a felony…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Powell
Case #: C057847
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/25/2010

Where the accusatory pleading fails to charge lesser included offenses and the court grants an acquittal pursuant to Penal Code section 1118.1, if a period of time has passed, such that defendant has achieved a "modicum of repose from prosecution," the acquittal also applies to a lesser included offense. Appellant was charged with felony driving under the influence with injury. When the prosecution rested, appellant moved for acquittal (Pen. Code, sec. 1118.1) because injury had not been established. The court granted the motion, but in the same unbroken proceeding indicated that it would instruct on the lesser included offense…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Noel
Case #: A099366
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/05/2005
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 7/27/05: S134543

In this consolidated appeal from the San Francisco dog mauling trial, the court considered together defendant Knoller’s appeal from her conviction and the People’s appeal from the order granting her a new trial. The court rejected Knoller’s argument that the trial court lost jurisdiction to sentence her after the People appealed the order granting her a new trial, noting that Penal Code section 1242 expressly reserves such jurisdiction to the trial court. The court further agreed with the People that the trial court had erred in granting Knoller a new trial on the second degree murder charge. …

View Full Summary
Name: Smith v. Massachusetts
Case #: Mar-61
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 02/22/2005
Subsequent History: Cross cites: 125 S.Ct. 1129; 160 L.Ed.2d 914

At the conclusion of the prosecution case, appellant moved to dismiss one of the firearm charges for insufficient evidence. The court granted the motion, and the trial proceeded. The prosecutor argued the count to the jury, and the court reversed its position and allowed the count to go to the jury. The Massachusetts appellate court upheld the conviction on that count, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated because the trial court's correction of its ruling had not subjected petitioner to a second prosecution, and that reconsideration of the decision was not prohibited by the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Anthony J.
Case #: D040331
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/07/2004
Subsequent History: Rehrg. den. 4/27/04

The finding that the minor received or possessed a stolen car was not supported by substantial evidence. A petition alleged that the minor stole a vehicle and received a stolen vehicle. After the close of the People’s case, the minor moved to dismiss the second count, but that motion was denied, and the minor subsequently testified on his own behalf. At the close of evidence the court dismissed the car theft allegation, but sustained the receiving count. The minor’s counsel did not file an appeal from the judgment sustaining the petition, but did appeal from a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mendoza
Case #: S067104
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/31/2000
Subsequent History: Rehearing denied 9/13/00

Mendoza and his codefendant, Valle, were charged with murder committed during the course of a robbery, in violation of Penal Code section 189. The defendants were also charged with the robbery, and a special circumstance that the murder was committed during the course of a robbery. The separate juries convicted on the murder and robbery, and found the special circumstances to be true. Neither jury's verdict specified the degree of murder, though they had been instructed only on first degree felony-murder. Penal Code section 1157 provides that where a defendant is convicted of a crime which…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Norris
Case #: B149731
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/22/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. Denied 4/17/02.

Penal Code sections 1118 and 1118.2 , which provide for acquittals of offenses, do not apply to status-based, recidivist allegations such as prior prison term allegations. Thus, the trial court’s purported finding of "not guilty" on a prior prison term was not binding, and it was free to reexamine the…

View Full Summary