Ball exception in California

2017First, "Where the prosecutor is aware that the evidence he or she plans to present will include several distinct acts, any one of which might arguably constitute the crime charged, there is no reason he or she should be allowed to play 'hide the ball' with the defense." ( Salvato, supra , 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 880 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 837 .) Provided the evidence is disclosed at the preliminary hearing, however, the defendant is fully apprised of the acts he must defend against.

2017First, "Where the prosecutor is aware that the evidence he or she plans to present will include several distinct acts, any one of which might arguably constitute the crime charged, there is no reason he or she should be allowed to play 'hide the ball' with the defense." ( Salvato, supra , 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 880 , 285 Cal.Rptr. 837 .) Provided the evidence is disclosed at the preliminary hearing, however, the defendant is fully apprised of the acts he must defend against.

2025(People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 328 .) 10 b.

2017Moreover, the prosecutor is not entitled to proceed on a factual theory not disclosed by the preliminary hearing. ( People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151 , 165-166, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 .) There is no hiding the ball.

2017Moreover, the prosecutor is not entitled to proceed on a factual theory not disclosed by the preliminary hearing. ( People v. Burnett (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 151 , 165-166, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 629 .) There is no hiding the ball.

2016(See People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896 .) It is axiomatic that a criminal defendant is entitled to "an appellate record that is adequate to permit meaningful review." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1170 .) Here, we have no means of determining whether the terms of Ball's plea bargain were illusory.

2016(See People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896 .) It is axiomatic that a criminal defendant is entitled to "an appellate record that is adequate to permit meaningful review." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1170 .) Here, we have no means of determining whether the terms of Ball's plea bargain were illusory.

2011A. The Statutory Licensing Scheme The CSLL, section 7000 et seq., requires contractors to be licensed unless they are exempt from licensure. (§§ 7026, 7031, 7040 et seq.) “The purpose of the licensing law is to protect the public from incompetence and dishonesty in those who provide building and construction services. [Citation.] The licensing requirements provide minimal assurance that all persons offering such services in California have the requisite skill and character, understand applicable local laws and codes, and know the rudiments of administering a contracting business.” ( Hydrotech,

2009Ball’s analysis was premised, in part, on its view (1) that “ ‘the primary intent of the federal labeling requirements is to regulate what producers say about their products’ ” ( 424 F.Supp. at p. 762 , italics added); and (2) that “what Congress sought to reach . . . was fraudulent or deceptive practices by manufacturers or distributors of regulated products . . .” (id. at p. 764, italics added).

2002Reversing a Court of Appeal order vacating a second conviction for bank robbery on double jeopardy grounds, he explained the rule announced in Ball, supra, 163 U.S. 662 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 , and added this insight: "While different theories have been advanced to support the permissibility of retrial [after conviction and reversal on appeal], of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to explain the Ball principle are the implications of that principle for the sound administration of Justice ....

2002Reversing a Court of Appeal order vacating a second conviction for bank robbery on double jeopardy grounds, he explained the rule announced in Ball, supra, 163 U.S. 662 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 , and added this insight: "While different theories have been advanced to support the permissibility of retrial [after conviction and reversal on appeal], of greater importance than the conceptual abstractions employed to explain the Ball principle are the implications of that principle for the sound administration of Justice ....

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

2002(See, e.g., Trono v. United States (1905) 199 U.S. 521, 523 , 26 S.Ct. 121 , 50 L.Ed. 292 ; cf. People v. Henderson, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 495 , 35 Cal.Rptr. 77 , 386 P.2d 677 .) We think the overriding justification for the Ball exception was identified by the second Justice Harlan in United States v. Tateo, supra, 377 U.S. 463 , 84 S.Ct. 1587 , 12 L.Ed.2d 448 .

1981For a failure to comply with this requirement, any order made on such subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.” (Italics added.) The present statute became effective on January 1, 1979 (see also 10 Pacific L.J. 344-346). 4 Of course, on appeal from the final judgment, we may review any nonappea'lable intermediate order that involves or necessarily affects the merits (City of Oakland v. Darbee (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 493, 505 [ 227 P.2d 909 ]). 5 Coldwell Banker quotes (but does not cite) a part of the opinion of this court (Div. Three) in Lavrischeff v. Blumer (1978

1981For a failure to comply with this requirement, any order made on such subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.” (Italics added.) The present statute became effective on January 1, 1979 (see also 10 Pacific L.J. 344-346). 4 Of course, on appeal from the final judgment, we may review any nonappea'lable intermediate order that involves or necessarily affects the merits (City of Oakland v. Darbee (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 493, 505 [ 227 P.2d 909 ]). 5 Coldwell Banker quotes (but does not cite) a part of the opinion of this court (Div. Three) in Lavrischeff v. Blumer (1978

1981The [appellate] court, construing the moving party’s affidavits strictly ... and the counteraffidavits liberally ..., will reverse the summary judgment if any kind of case is shown,” (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Proceedings Without Trial, § 199, p. 2844.)’ (Bowden v. Robinson (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 705 , p. 719 ....)” (Fosgate v. Gonzales (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 951, 954-955 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 233 ].) First, we turn to the parties’ procedural contentions pertaining to Ball’s motion for reconsideration, as the resolution of this issue determines whether the affidavits and declarations filed