Articles Posted in New Criminal Case Law

People v Felix, 2024 WL 979674 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)

Summary: Felix was arrested in Utah after being stopped for a traffic violation. He consented to a search of his car which resulted in the recovery of a handgun, ammunition and over five kilograms of methamphetamine. While in custody in Utah on drug charges, Felix became a suspect in two murders that occurred in Southern California. After his return to, California, Felix invoked his right to counsel while being interviewed by the detectives investigating one of the murders. Felix was placed in a cell with an undercover detective to whom he made incriminating statements about both murders. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered during the Utah traffic stop and admitted, over his objection, his incriminating statements made to the undercover agent. Felix was found  guilty of two counts of first degree murder.

On appeal, Felix contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered from the warrantless search of his car and in admitting his statements to the undercover agent because he had previously invoked his right to counsel while being interviewed by detectives. The Court of Appeal  affirmed the judgment of conviction.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. (Cal. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2024, No. B328954) 2024 WL 1131026, at *1

Summary: Two Los Angeles police officers in a cruiser saw Jackson, an African American man,  alone in a parked car. They pulled alongside, boxing Jackson in so that he would have to squeeze to get out. One officer went to Jackson’s side of the car, while the other walked to Jackson’s passenger side. Both shined flashlights on Jackson. Surrounding Jackson, the officers’ actions meant a reasonable person in his position would not feel free to leave.

The officers explained that Jackson was wearing a “big bulky jacket” on a “hot” and “humid” night. He “was seated kind of awkwardly in the driver’s seat.” And when they approached in the dark and shined flashlights on him, he looked “uncomfortable and kind of nervous,” “like he was surprised to see us.”

Bonds v. Superior Court; D082187; 2/14/24;2024 WL 617245 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Summary: Bonds was charged with a misdemeanor concealed firearm violation filed a motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act. The Superior Court denied the motion and Bonds  filed petition for writ of mandate.The Court of Appeal held that the trial court applied wrong legal standard in denying defendant’s motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act, and statistical studies regarding practices of city’s police department were admissible in determining whether a violation of the Racial Justice Act occurred during traffic stop.

Purpose of The Racial Justice Act

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Kevin Eugene CARTWRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant. 317 Cal.Rptr.3d 472

Summary: The Court of Appeal held that police did not conduct a warrantless search when they accessed footage from city’s streetlight cameras that captured defendant’s image.

A jury convicted Cartwright of first degree murder with special circumstances.

Michael Earl MOSBY III, Petitioner, v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent;The People, Real Party in Interest.

2024 WL 278040 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.)

Summary: Mosby, an African-American defendant who was charged with murder with special circumstances and the prosecutor sought the death penalty,  Mosby petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the Superior Court, Riverside to hold an evidentiary hearing and to vacate its order denying a hearing on, his claim under the Racial Justice Actfor racial discrimination in the charges brought against him.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v, ESTEBAN JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant. D081267:Filed 1/3/2024— Cal.Rptr.3d —

Summary: Jimenez was convicted of evading an officer while driving recklessly (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)) and leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)) and found true a prior strike allegation. Jimenez appealedcontending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident (“hit and run”) in violation of Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a). The Court of Appeal agreed.

Evidence at Trial

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Christian Steve CAMPOS, Defendant and Appellant.F084307; Filed January 22, 2024

2024 WL 226419 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.), 1

Summary: Campos contends electronic information evidence introduced in his murder trial should have been suppressed because he was not properly notified of its acquisition by the government pursuant to the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Pen. Code, § 1546 et seq.; CalECPA). Although the government did not properly notify Campos pursuant to the CalECPA, suppression is unwarranted.