At yesterday’s conference, the Supreme Court ordered further proceedings in a case about protecting prisoners from the COVID-19 pandemic and it refused to put an early end to a fetal-murder prosecution of a defendant who used drugs during her pregnancy.

Other actions of note included:

  • The court granted review in People v. Henderson and it limited the issue to, “Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c)(6) & (7), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6) & (7)) require consecutive terms on multiple current violent or serious felony convictions, regardless of whether the offenses occurred on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts?”  In a published opinion, the Second District, Division Seven, Court of Appeal held the superior court did not have discretion to impose concurrent sentences for the defendant’s conviction on two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm.  The appellate court said it was disagreeing with four Court of Appeal decisions.  The Attorney General did not seek review in any of those four cases.
  • At the request of new Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, the court dismissed review in Narith S. v. Superior Court, where the Second District, Division Three, held that 2018 legislation, Senate Bill 1391, which eliminated the possibility of transfer to adult criminal court for crimes committed when a minor was 14 or 15 years old, did not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 57.  Gascón has promised to end the practice of trying juveniles as adults in his county.  Narith was a grant-and-hold for O.G. v. Superior Court, argued earlier this month, which is expected to decide the constitutional issue.  The district attorney also withdrew an amicus brief the office had filed in the O.G. case.
  • The court limited the issues in an employment arbitration case it agreed to hear last week.  In Conyer v. Hula Media Services, LLC, the court will now decide only, “Did the Court of Appeal err by severing unconscionable terms from the arbitration agreement and ordering the agreement enforced?  Did it err by doing so without determining whether the invalid provisions were included in the agreement in bad faith?  (See Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 124-125, fn. 13.)”
  • The court denied review and depublication requests in In re K.W., but Justice Leondra Kruger recorded a vote to hear the case.  The Fourth District, Division Two, opinion held the superior court did not have the discretion to reduce an adjudicated crime to a lesser offense for the purpose of sealing the minor’s record.
  • The court dismissed review in Burch v. Certainteed Corp. (see here), a grant-and-hold for B.B. v. County of Los Angeles.  Burch was an asbestos injury case, but the court limited the issue there to, “Does Civil Code section 1431.2, which limits a defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages ‘in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault,’ eliminate an intentional tortfeasor’s joint and several liability for noneconomic damages?”  In B.B., a killing-by-police case, the court in August held that, regardless of their proportion of fault, intentional tortfeasors are responsible for all noneconomic damages awarded.
  • There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds:  three more holding for a decision in People v. Lewis (see here), one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here), one more holding for People v. Raybon (see here), two more holding for People v. Tirado (see here), and one more holding for In re Milton (see here).