At its conference yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two more cases. Here’s information about those and other actions:
Clemency grant. Supreme Court approves pardon for host of Pulitzer Prize nominated podcast.
Discovery of social media info in criminal cases. The court granted review in Snap, Inc. v. Superior Court. The Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal, in a published opinion, upheld a murder defendant’s subpoena of two years’ worth of the victim’s Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat posts and communications, although disclosure is to be made first to the superior court for an in camera relevancy hearing. The victim was the defendant’s brother and the defendant claimed the social media publications could show his brother’s violent character. The social media companies relied on the federal Stored Communications Act for protection, but Division One concluded that because the companies’ “business models . . . provide them with the ability to access and use the information sought by [the defendant], the SCA does not foreclose production of th[e] information.” The appellate court also said the evidence supported the superior court’s finding of good cause for discovery. The Snap case will be a follow-up to the Supreme Court’s Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (Touchstone) (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329 decision (see here), which stated a “good cause” standard, but deferred answering questions about the SCA. Regarding the SCA, Division One in particular examined Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye’s extended concurrence in Touchstone.
[September 20 update: Here’s the issue as summarized by court staff — “(1) Does the federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) bar a social media company from disclosing an individual’s account information in response to a criminal defendant’s subpoena? (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that good cause supported the subpoena for third-party discovery?”]
City ordinance enforcement. The court also agreed to hear Cohen v. Superior Court and it limited the issue to: “Does Government Code section 36900, subdivision (a) confer upon private citizens a right to redress violations of municipal ordinances?” The statute makes it a misdemeanor or an infraction to violate a city ordinance and says a violation “may be prosecuted by city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.” The Second District, Division Four, published opinion concluded, “the Legislature only intended section 36900 to grant city authorities—not all private parties—the right to redress violations of municipal ordinances via either criminal prosecution or civil action.” (Writing nit note: shouldn’t “only” go between “grant” and “city” instead of where it is?) In doing so, Division Four “overrule[d] . . . and disavow[ed]” one of its prior decisions, Riley v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 599, 607. (Jurisdiction nit note: can a Court of Appeal overrule one of its opinions or can it do no more than disagree?) The Supreme Court denied review in Riley.
[Update: about that jurisdiction nit, I just noticed that Court of Appeal Justice Michael Raphael has a Daily Journal column today discussing the issue of whether a Court Appeal can overrule one of its own opinions. Justice Raphael mentions two instances, in 1977 and 1980, when his court — Division Two of the Fourth District — “overruled” its earlier decisions. He could have also mentioned the Division Two opinion in People v. Thompson (1981) 178 Cal.Rptr. 735 that overruled People v. Barrick (1981) 177 Cal.Rptr. 532. The Supreme Court granted a hearing (what “review” was called back then) in both cases and decided that the “overruled” Barrick decision reached the right result. (People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115.) The only reason I know that trivia is because I was the research attorney for the overruled Barrick opinion’s author.]
John’s Grill grant-and-hold dispositions (see here). The court removed from its docket three cases that were holding for last month’s decision in John’s Grill, Inc. v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1003 (see here). French Laundry Partners, LLP v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. had been sent by the Ninth Circuit for the Supreme Court to answer a question of California law; after having made the case a grant-and-hold, the court “dismiss[ed] consideration of the question” because John’s Grill makes “resolution of the question posed by the . . . Ninth Circuit . . . no longer ‘necessary . . . to settle an important question of law.’ ” (See here and here.) Similarly, the court dismissed review in Showa Hospitality, LLC v. Sentinel Insurance Co. (see here). Brooklyn Restaurants, Inc. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd. (see here) was sent back to the Fourth District, Division One, for reconsideration in light of John’s Grill.
Pre-trial detention grant-and-transfer. The court granted review in In re Munoz and transferred the case to the Third District, which had summarily denied a habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeal is to issue an order to show cause “why petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds that, at the detention hearings held on June 26 and July 2, 2024, the San Joaquin County Superior Court failed to address the feasibility of less restrictive alternatives to detention and to articulate the factual basis for its findings — made pursuant to article I, section 12, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution — with sufficient specificity to facilitate review of its detention orders. (In re Humphrey (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135, 154-156 [see here].)” (Links added.)
More dissenting votes for review about youth offender parole denial. Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans recorded dissenting votes from the denials of review in People v. Cisneros, People v. Sedillo, and People v. Watson. Unpublished opinions by the Sixth District and Divisions Three and Four of the Second District, respectively, rejected constitutional challenges to the statute that prevents parole hearings for defendants serving life without parole sentences for special circumstances murders committed between the ages of 18 and 26. In People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, the Supreme Court found unavailing an equal protection attack. (See here.) Justices Liu and Evans dissented there. After Hardin, they have been regularly dissenting from review denials in youth offender parole cases, including once with a separate statement asserting that cruel-or-unusual-punishment issues should be addressed (see here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Habeas corpus dissenting vote. Justice Liu also voted to hear In re Sanchez. The court denied review after the Fourth District, Division Two, summarily denied an “emergency” habeas corpus petition. The Supreme Court’s and Division Two’s dockets don’t indicate what the petition was about, so we don’t know what issue or issues were of interest to Justice Liu. There’s a remedy for that lack of information.
Proposition 66 transfer. The court transferred another capital habeas corpus petition to the superior court under Penal Code section 1509(a), enacted by Proposition 66. (See here and here.) This petition was filed by a pro per.
Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were four criminal case grant-and-holds: one more waiting for decisions in two death penalty appeals — People v. Bankston and People v. Hin (see here), another one on hold for People v. Rhodius (see here), and one more holding for People v. Morris (see here).