February 7, 2013

March oral argument calendar announced

After finishing its February oral arguments yesterday, the Supreme Court announced its March calendar.

On March 5 and 6, the court will hear the following cases in San Francisco (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website):

County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Co. Employee Relations Comm.: (1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, section 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit? (2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees’ privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so?

McWilliams v. City of Long Beach: Can a local ordinance preclude the filing of a class claim for a tax refund, or are the provisions of the Government Claims Act excepting from its reach claims brought under a “statute prescribing procedures for the refund . . . of any tax” (Gov. Code, section 905, subd. (a)) inapplicable to local ordinances?

In re Boyette: In this case, which is related to the automatic appeal in People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, the court issued an order to show cause limited to claims of juror misconduct.

People v. Beltran: (1) Was the jury misinstructed with former CALCRIM No. 570 on provocation and heat of passion as a basis for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter? (2) Did the prosecutor misstate the applicable law on the subject in argument? (3) Did the trial court accurately respond to a jury question on the subject? (4) If there was error, was defendant prejudiced?

People v. Nuckles: Was defendant properly convicted of being an accessory to a felony for assisting another person to abscond from his parole term after serving his sentence for that felony?

People v. Park: Should the enhancement imposed on defendant under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), be stricken because his prior conviction for a serious felony was reduced to a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), and dismissed under Penal Code section 1203.4?

People v. Bryant: May voluntary manslaughter be premised on a killing without malice that occurs during commission of an inherently dangerous assaultive felony?