Other than a couple of grant-and-holds and an order to show cause on a capital habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court was in a negative mood at its conference yesterday. There were no straight grants. Two of the denials came in marijuana-related cases, hence the headline for this post. Actions of note included:

  • Three-justice separate statement on Miranda issue.
  • Church pot. The court denied review in County of San Bernardino v. Mancini, where the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s published opinion affirmed an injunction, fines, and a jail sentence for violation of an anti-commercial cannabis ordinance by the Jah Healing Kemetic Temple of the Divine Church, Inc., “whose adherents,” the appellate court said, “consume cannabis blessed by Church pastors as ‘sacrament.’ ” Division Two held the ordinance was not preempted by state law and did not violate either the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or the California Constitution. Division Two did, however, say that “the injunction . . . allow[s] the Church to dispense free blessed cannabis to its adherents for immediate use as part of a bona fide religious ritual or ceremony.”
  • Bong warnings. The court denied a request to depublish the opinion of the First District, Division Two, in Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. v. Sream, Inc. The appellate court held Proposition 65 — California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act — didn’t require a company to warn that its water pipe products exposed consumers to marijuana smoke. Division Two said a warning would be confusing because “[c]onsumers could, for example, interpret such a label on a water pipe to warn of direct exposure caused by the material the pipe is made of, or to warn of the effect of burning any substance on the pipe.” (See Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Bongs don’t need to come with warnings of cancer-causing chemicals, California Supreme Court says.”)
  • Capital habeas OSC: Instead of transferring a death row prisoner’s habeas corpus petition to the superior court under Proposition 66 (see here and here), the Supreme Court denied a number of the claims raised, but issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, regarding the defendant’s competence at trial. In April, on the prisoner’s automatic direct appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the death penalty and affirmed a first-degree murder conviction. (People v. Bloom (2022) 12 Cal.5th 1008; see here.) The court at that time rejected a claim that the superior court should have instituted proceedings to determine his competency, but left for a possible future habeas corpus proceeding the issue whether defense counsel was ineffective in failing to raise doubts about his client’s competence.
  • Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were two criminal case grant-and-holds:  one is waiting for the finality of Monday’s opinion in People v. Delgadillo and the other is another one on hold for People v. Williams (see here).
  • Grant-and-hold disposals.  The court dumped 25 grant-and-holds: D’Arcy v. Schulte, an anti-SLAPP case (see here), was returned to the Court of Appeal to reconsider in light of the August decision in Geiser v. Kuhns (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1238, for which D’Arcy was back-burnered. Review was dismissed in two cases that had been waiting for the August opinion in People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933. As in past weeks, most of the action was in cases on hold for the August decision in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. Review was dismissed in six and 16 were sent back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Strong.