The Supreme Court today announced it will hear only three cases in June. The arguments will be live streamed, and opinions in the cases should file by August 31.

Because the June calendar is the last before the traditional July and August argument hiatus, we now know the court will issue only 55 opinions this term. That’s only six more than last term’s historically low output. (Related: “What’s ailing the California Supreme Court? Its productivity has plummeted”.)

[May 24 update: there will now be 56 opinions in the term because of a specially set argument at the end of June in a voting rights case. (See here.)]

Again, there are no death penalty appeal arguments scheduled. The court hasn’t heard an automatic capital appeal since the one on the February calendar. In 2017, when it mostly upheld Proposition 66, which was designed to speed California executions, the court said that the initiative’s deadlines for court action on capital cases “must be deemed directive rather than mandatory,” but also that the deadlines are “properly construed as an exhortation to the parties and the courts to handle cases as expeditiously as is consistent with the fair and principled administration of justice.” (Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 823, 859.) (Related: “High court hears more death penalty appeals after Proposition 66”.)

On Tuesday, June 6, in San Diego (see here), the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself; additional information about each case can be found at the links showing when the court agreed to hear the case):

Camacho v. Superior Court: Does a 15-year delay in bringing a defendant to trial under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et. seq) constitute a due process violation? The court granted review in May 2022.

[May 24 update: At the Attorney General’s request, Camacho has been continued to a special June 27 hearing date. (See here.)]

People v. Gray: Did the trial court violate the due process right to confrontation applicable at probation and parole revocation hearings by admitting hearsay statements in a bodycam video under the excited utterance exception (Evid. Code, § 1240) without first making a finding of good cause and determining whether a balancing of the relevant factors under People v. Arreola (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1144 favored admission? The court granted review in June 2021.

People v. Schuller: (1) Was the trial court’s error in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense harmless? (2) What standard of prejudice applies to such an error? The court granted review in January 2022.