At Voir Dire, Judges Must Interview Prospective Jurors if they Ambiguously Oppose Death Penalty

If a juror provides an ambiguous answer to whether they would not impose the death penalty, the judge has the obligation to interview the candidate further to determine their view on the issue

People v. Covarrubias, 2016 BL 293182, Cal., No. S075136, 9/8/16.

The California Supreme Court held that jury candidates that are opposed to the death penalty can be removed, but if their answer is ambiguous, then the court must interview the candidate personally to clarify their stance. The case arose because of a juror that marked on a written questionnaire that he was “strongly opposed” to the death penalty and would “probably refuse” to impose it. The prosecutor successfully challenged and removed the candidate from the jury pool. The court found this to be an error, however, because the judge should not have removed him without further investigating his views, especially since the same juror said he would “probably” be able to set aside his personal beliefs in sentencing.

The trial court has the obligation to investigate any ambiguous statements made by a juror. The error, however, does not reverse the conviction but does require a reversal of the death sentence.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/People_v_Covarrubias_No_S075136_2016_BL_293182_Cal_Sept_08_2016_C.

Ban from Home Depot for Shoplifting Does Not Violate Right to Travel

After shoplifting from Home Depot, a court imposed ban from visiting the store was determined to be constitutional because it did not violate a person’s right to travel

People v. Moran, 2016 BL 252329, Cal., No. S215914, 8/4/16.

    The California Supreme Court ruled that as a condition of a convicted burglar’s probation, a court can impose a complete ban from a store’s property throughout the state without violating the right to travel. After robbing a Home Depot and being placed on probation, the defendant argued that the prohibition was to expansive and violated his right to travel. The court disagreed and held that “He was not, after all, prohibited from entering all retail establishments nor even all home improvement, hardware, or big box stores. The condition simply prevented him from entering the stores (and adjacent parking lots) of the company he victimized.”

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/People_v_Moran_No_S215914_2016_BL_252329_Cal_Aug_04_2016_Court_Op.

California: Swiss Army Knife Not Considered a Dagger

After a recent California decision, a simple pocket knife is not considered an illegal dagger under state statute because the blade did not lock into place

People v. Castillolopez, 2016 BL 175546, Cal., No-S21886, 6/2/16.

    The case arose from a dispute over what constitutes a dagger under California statute, which specifies that for a blade or knife to be considered as a dagger, it must be exposed and locked into position. The California Supreme Court held that pocketknives do not necessarily come “locked into position,” even if they can be “secured in a rigid or fastened location.”  In the end, because the knife could easily be closed by applying pressure to the back of it, it could not be considered “locked into position” within the meaning of the California statute, thereby not making it a dagger.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/People_v_Castillolopez_No_S218861_2016_BL_175546_Cal_June_02_2016.