granted defense in California

2021Pitchess Prior to the first trial the trial court granted a defense motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess), for a review of the personnel records of Detective Sanchez, the Spanish speaking detective who assisted and translated when Manzur was interviewed by police.

2019Pitchess Prior to the first trial the trial court granted a defense motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) for a review of the personnel records of Detective Sanchez, the Spanish-speaking detective who assisted and translated when Manzur was interviewed by police.

2024If he does not testify in such a way as you have proposed in your motions in limine, then that conviction will need to be sanitized to only reflect that it is a felony conviction out of San Mateo from October 10, 2012. . . .” “A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction. . . .” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 .) Evidence Code sections 788 and 352 govern the admissibility of felony convictions for impeachment.

2024If he does not testify in such a way as you have proposed in your motions in limine, then that conviction will need to be sanitized to only reflect that it is a felony conviction out of San Mateo from October 10, 2012. . . .” “A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a felony conviction. . . .” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 .) Evidence Code sections 788 and 352 govern the admissibility of felony convictions for impeachment.

2023(Navarrete, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) The trial court granted the defense motion to suppress any reference to defendant’s confession that was obtained in violation of his Miranda3 rights.

2021(Navarrete, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 830 .) The trial court granted the defense motion to suppress any reference to defendant’s confession that was obtained in violation of his Miranda7 rights.

2021However, based on the record before the trial court at the time it denied the severance motion, it did not appear likely that the jury was in danger of finding Rascon guilty “based upon the relationship between [Goodman and Rascon] rather than upon the evidence separately implicating [Rascon].” ( Letner, supra, 59 Cal.4th 99 at p. 152 .) The evidence against Rascon in the December 2018 burglary was compelling.

2016(Letner and Tobin, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 149 .) II Motion for Mistrial A Prior to trial, the court granted a defense motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding Department of Homeland Security alerts for Aguilar unless used for impeachment.

2015Thereafter, defense counsel told the trial court, “I think we need to do a [People v.] Marsden[, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 ] hearing.” The trial court held the hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 .

2015Thereafter, defense counsel told the trial court, “I think we need to do a [People v.] Marsden[, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 ] hearing.” The trial court held the hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden, supra, 2 Cal.3d 118 .

2026One of the probation conditions requires that defendant, “Participate and complete at your expense any counseling, rehabilitation/treatment program deemed appropriate by probation officer.” The court also granted defense counsel’s request that all applicable fines and fees be waived pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 , disapproved of by People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1 , 22, which is reflected on the sentencing minute 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 order.

2024The Court of Appeal reversed. ( Wright, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 344, 348.) With respect to duty, the appellate court observed the jury was instructed, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 1799.106, that a paramedic has a general duty to perform medical services with the care and skill ordinarily used by paramedics under similar circumstances in the same or a similar locale.8 ( Wright, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 343–344.) Thus, 8The jury was instructed: “ ‘It is the duty of one who undertakes to perform the services of a police officer or paramedic to have the knowledge and

2024The Court of Appeal reversed. ( Wright, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 344, 348.) With respect to duty, the appellate court observed the jury was instructed, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 1799.106, that a paramedic has a general duty to perform medical services with the care and skill ordinarily used by paramedics under similar circumstances in the same or a similar locale.8 ( Wright, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at pp. 343–344.) Thus, 8The jury was instructed: “ ‘It is the duty of one who undertakes to perform the services of a police officer or paramedic to have the knowledge and

2024(People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708 ; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959 (Lewis).) “If [a] petitioner ma[kes] a prima facie showing for relief, the trial court [is] required to issue an order to show cause for an evidentiary hearing.” (People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 887 , 891, citing § 1172.6, subd. (c).) In assessing eligibility at the prima facie stage, the court “‘“takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.”’” (Lewi

2024Accordingly, as does defendant, we again focus on the trial court’s purported violation of his right to self-representation under the federal Constitution as well as under Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121 .

2024Accordingly, as does defendant, we again focus on the trial court’s purported violation of his right to self-representation under the federal Constitution as well as under Windham, supra, 19 Cal.3d 121 .

2022(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 ; see also People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We also consider the entire trial record, including the arguments of counsel, in assessing the probable effect of a jury instruction.

2022(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) “When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 803 ; see also People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 963 .) We also consider the entire trial record, including the arguments of counsel, in assessing the probable effect of a jury instruction.

2022(See People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1207 ; see also Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1131 .) We note further that, when ruling on the parties’ 18 in limine motions, the trial court granted a defense request “that each objection posed during these motions in limine constitute a continuing and ongoing objection when such evidence is admitted during the trial.” The court further stated to trial counsel that “if there is an in limine motion that I feel it’s necessary for you to object at the time, I will let you know.” Turning to the merits of Sanchez’s claim, we re

2022The trial court granted hearing on the petition, but on December 22, 2014, the trial court stayed the hearing pending decision by the California Supreme Court in People v. Atkins (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 536 [review granted Nov. 12, 2014 (S221786), review dismissed Oct. 14, 2015, in light of the decision in People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674 ].2 When the hearing on his petition was not forthcoming, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, requesting a hearing on his resentencing petition.

2021“It is the general rule that when an unexpected answer of a witness, which could not be anticipated by objection to the question, contains inadmissible and prejudicial matter, a motion to strike it out is the proper remedy.” (People v. Glass (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 751, 753 .) The trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to strike Detective Wade’s statement, and admonished the jury to disregard it.

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial

2019Discussion Section 1121 provides, in relevant part, that "[t]he jurors sworn to try an action may, in the discretion of the court, be permitted to separate or be kept in charge of a proper officer." It is well settled that under this statute and prior case law, "sequestration is discretionary with the trial court even in capital cases." ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189 , 1218, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71 , 756 P.2d 795 , accord People v. Gallego (1990) 52 Cal.3d 115 , 169, 276 Cal.Rptr. 679 , 802 P.2d 169 ; People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589 , 616, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200 , 749 P.2d 854 .) "The trial