On Monday, the Supreme Court will file opinions in Baral v. Schnitt and People v. Jackson, which were argued on the early-May calendar.

We expected a Monday filing also of the opinion in People v. Macabeo, because that’s the last regular filing day within the 90-day deadline for the case.  Tuesday is the actual 90th day.  A special filing on Tuesday would be a rare event and would suggest there’s some last-minute drafting happening, possibly on a separate opinion.

Macabeo comes in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s (indirect) reversal of a California Supreme Court decision.  It is expected to answer these questions:  (1) May law enforcement officers conduct a search incident to the authority to arrest for a minor traffic offense, so long as a custodial arrest (even for an unrelated crime) follows?  (2) Did Riley v. California (2014) __ U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430] require the exclusion of evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the suspect’s cell phone incident to arrest, or did the search fall within the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule (see Davis v. United States (2011) 564 U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285]) in light of People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84?

Baral raises the issue whether a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute — Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 — authorizes a trial court to excise allegations of activity protected under the statute when the cause of action also includes meritorious allegations based on activity that is not protected under the statute.

Jackson is an automatic appeal from a November 2005 judgment of death.  It was originally scheduled for argument over a year ago, but the court continued the argument and asked for supplemental briefing on these questions:  What is the significance, if any, of Evidence Code section 1108 with respect to the cross-admissibility of evidence of the sexual assault on Myrna Mason?  Among the subsidiary questions counsel may wish to address are the following:  1. In light of the amended information (CT 713-714) and the jury instruction given in this case on the elements of burglary (CALJIC No. 14.50; CT 4138), was defendant accused of a sexual offense against Geraldine Myers within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1108 and People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1294?  2. What evidence, other than the Mason sexual offenses, would support a jury finding that defendant entered Myers’s home with the intent to commit a sexual offense?  (See People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal.4th 903, 920, 923.)  3. Assuming defendant was accused of a sexual offense against Myers, would the trial court have been required to exclude evidence of the Mason sexual offenses under Evidence Code section 352 in a separate trial of the Myers charges?  (Falsetta, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 916-919.)  4. Do the provisions of Evidence Code section 1108 provide a basis to uphold the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to sever the Mason charges from the Myers charges?

The Baral and Jackson opinions can be viewed Monday starting at 10:00 a.m.

[Update:  No Tuesday filing for Macabeo.  The court this afternoon vacated submission of the case and asked for supplemental briefing regarding the effect on the case, if any, of People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1124-1126.  The order resets the 90-day clock, which will start running again when the last supplemental brief is filed.]