indication claim in California

2026Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493 .) The written claim must include: (1) the name and address of the claimant; (2) the address where notices may be sent; (3) the date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted; (4) a description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage, or loss incurred, as known at the time of presentation of the claim; (5) the names of the public employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known; and (6) the claim amount or an indication of whether the claim would be a limited civi

2026Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493 .) The written claim must include: (1) the name and address of the claimant; (2) the address where notices may be sent; (3) the date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted; (4) a description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage, or loss incurred, as known at the time of presentation of the claim; (5) the names of the public employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known; and (6) the claim amount or an indication of whether the claim would be a limited civi

2026Authority (2004) 34 Cal.4th 441, 446 .) As such, a claim need not be technically perfect; it needs to only substantially comply with all the statutory requirements.

2019Section 1054.3 requires a criminal defendant to provide the 9 prosecution with relevant written or recorded statements only of those persons “he or she intends to call as witnesses at trial . . . .” (§ 1054.3, subd. (a)(1).) Our Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to apply to any witness the defense “‘reasonably anticipates it is likely to call.’” (Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 , 375-376 & fn. 11, (Izazaga).) Absent an indication the defense reasonably foresees calling the witness, section 1054.3 imposes no disclosure obligation.5 (See ibid.; Sandeffer v. Superior C

2016(Compare In re Stankewitz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 396 with People v. Thompson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 140-141.)6 6 The trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the meaning or context of the statement.

2016(Compare In re Stankewitz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 396 with People v. Thompson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 140-141.)6 6 The trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the meaning or context of the statement.

2016At most, it appears to be an attempt to persuade, rather than an indication of violation of the court’s instructions. “‘[J]urors can be expected to disagree, even vehemently, and to attempt to persuade disagreeing fellow jurors by strenuous and sometimes heated means.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Thompson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 141 .) The comment did not rise to the level of misconduct.

2016(Compare In re Stankewitz, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 396 with People v. Thompson, supra, 49 Cal.4th at pp. 140-141.)6 6 The trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the meaning or context of the statement.

2015(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) Relying on People v. Woodward (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329 (Woodward),5 People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368 (Rucker),6 and People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897 , (Cardenas), defendant claims that “[a] long period of deliberation, by itself, is an indication that the error was prejudicial.” He points out that the evidentiary portion of the trial lasted about six days and the jury deliberated for about nine hours before returning its verdict.

2015(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) Relying on People v. Woodward (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329 (Woodward),5 People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368 (Rucker),6 and People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897 , (Cardenas), defendant claims that “[a] long period of deliberation, by itself, is an indication that the error was prejudicial.” He points out that the evidentiary portion of the trial lasted about six days and the jury deliberated for about nine hours before returning its verdict.

2015(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson).) Relying on People v. Woodward (1979) 23 Cal.3d 329 (Woodward),5 People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368 (Rucker),6 and People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897 , (Cardenas), defendant claims that “[a] long period of deliberation, by itself, is an indication that the error was prejudicial.” He points out that the evidentiary portion of the trial lasted about six days and the jury deliberated for about nine hours before returning its verdict.

1965This argument was made and rejected in Flynn ( 217 Cal.App.2d at p. 296 ; and see Atwood, 223 Cal.App.2d at p. 331 ).

1965This argument was made and rejected in Flynn ( 217 Cal.App.2d at p. 296 ; and see Atwood, 223 Cal.App.2d at p. 331 ).

1954The court was satisfied that the child was competent to testify, and no abuse of discretion appears. {People v. Goff, 100 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 223 P.2d 27 ].) The final contention is that the court committed prejudicial error in permitting the district attorney, while cross-examining appellant’s character witness, to inquire as to whether the witness had heard of a certain prior act of the appellant, “where there was an indication that the inquiry was not made in good faith.” There is nothing in the record which discloses that the question was not asked in good faith.

1954The court was satisfied that the child was competent to testify, and no abuse of discretion appears. {People v. Goff, 100 Cal.App.2d 166 [ 223 P.2d 27 ].) The final contention is that the court committed prejudicial error in permitting the district attorney, while cross-examining appellant’s character witness, to inquire as to whether the witness had heard of a certain prior act of the appellant, “where there was an indication that the inquiry was not made in good faith.” There is nothing in the record which discloses that the question was not asked in good faith.