People?v.?Saille?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1103?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?364;?820?P.2d?588 [No.?S016721.?Dec?12,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MANUEL?DE?JESUS?SAILLE,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Merced?County,?No.?12650,?George?C.?Barrett,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Richard?L.?Phillips,?Mark?E.?Cutler?and?Bradley?A.?Bristow,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Fiedler,?Gardner?&?Derham,?Cliff?Gardner,?Elaine?A.?Alexander,?Martin?Buchanan?and?Madeline?McDowell?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?Overoye,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Jane?N.?Kirkland,?W.?Scott?Thorpe?and?Janet?Neeley?Kvarme,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. John?J.?Meehan,?District?Attorney?(Oakland),?Thomas?J.?Orloff,?Chief?Assistant?District?Attorney,?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION PANELLI,?J. We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?resolve?a?conflict?among?the?Courts?of?Appeal?regarding?the?impact?of?legislation?abolishing?diminished?capacity?on?the?crime?of?voluntary?manslaughter.?Specifically,?the?issue?is?whether?the?law?of?this?state?still?permits?a?reduction?of?what?would?otherwise?be?murder?to?nonstatutory?voluntary?manslaughter?due?to?voluntary?intoxication?and/or?mental?disorder.fn.?1?In?this?case,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?it?does?not.?After?careful?examination?of?the?relevant?statutes?and?legislative?history,?we?agree. Following?a?retrial,?defendant?was?convicted?of?the?first?degree?murder?of?Guadalupe?Borba?(Pen.?Code,???187)fn.?2?and?the?attempted?murder?of?David?Ballagh?(???664/187).?His?earlier?conviction?for?these?crimes?was?reversed?[54?Cal.3d?1108]?on?appeal?for?Wheeler?error?(People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748]). Facts On?November?30,?1985,?defendant?started?drinking?at?a?friend's?house?shortly?before?noon.?He?had?drunk?15?to?18?beers?by?about?6?o'clock?that?evening;?he?then?went?to?a?bar?and?drank?about?3?or?4?more?beers.?He?was?noticeably?drunk?when?he?went?to?Eva's?Cafe?about?9?p.m.?The?bartender?signalled?the?security?guard,?David?Ballagh,?to?ask?defendant?to?leave.?Ballagh?told?defendant?he?could?not?drink?there?because?he?appeared?intoxicated?and?asked?defendant?to?leave;?defendant?did?so.?Defendant?returned?about?an?hour?later,?but?was?reminded?by?Ballagh?that?he?could?not?come?in.?Defendant?left?but?returned?again?around?11?p.m.?and?was?rebuffed?once?again?by?Ballagh.?As?he?left?he?said?to?Ballagh,?"I'm?going?to?get?a?gun?and?kill?you." Defendant?went?home?around?1?a.m.,?got?his?rifle?(a?semiautomatic?assault?rifle),?and?returned?to?the?bar.?As?he?entered?the?bar,?defendant?said?to?Ballagh,?"I?told?you?I?would?be?back."?Ballagh?tried?to?grab?the?rifle;?it?discharged?and?killed?a?patron.?Defendant?was?eventually?subdued?outside?the?bar;?both?he?and?Ballagh?were?shot?during?the?struggle. A?blood?sample?taken?from?defendant?about?two?hours?later?showed?a?blood-?alcohol?level?of?.14?percent.?Expert?testimony?at?trial?established?that?the?level?would?have?been?about?.19?percent?at?the?time?of?the?shooting. Contentions Defendant?contends?the?court's?instructions?on?the?effect?of?voluntary?intoxication?were?inadequate.?The?court?gave?CALJIC?No.?4.21,?stating?that?voluntary?intoxication?could?be?considered?in?determining?whether?defendant?had?the?specific?intent?to?kill.?The?court?instructed?on?first?and?second?degree?murder?and?voluntary?and?involuntary?manslaughter.?[1a]?It?did?not,?however,?relate?voluntary?intoxication?to?anything?other?than?the?specific?intent?to?kill.?Defendant?contends?the?instructions?were?insufficient?because?they?did?not?tell?the?jury?that?voluntary?intoxication,?like?heat?of?passion?upon?adequate?provocation,?could?negate?express?malice?and?reduce?what?would?otherwise?be?murder?to?voluntary?manslaughter.?Defendant?also?contends?that?the?court?should?have?instructed?sua?sponte?that?the?jury?could?consider?his?voluntary?intoxication?in?determining?whether?he?had?premeditated?and?deliberated?the?murder.?Defendant?further?contends?that?the?instructions?on?involuntary?manslaughter?improperly?required?a?showing?of?unconsciousness.?[54?Cal.3d?1109]…
People?v.?Cookson?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1091?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?176;?820?P.2d?278 [No.?S015205.?Dec?12,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?RANDALL?LEE?COOKSON,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Monterey?County,?No.?MCR5876,?William?M.?Wunderlich,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?with?Kennard,?J.,?concurring.) COUNSEL Julia?Kai?Barreto?and?Mark?D.?Greenberg?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Wilbur?F.?Littlefield,?Public?Defender?(Los?Angeles),?Laurence?M.?Sarnoff?and?John?Hamilton?Scott,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Stan?Helfman,?John?T.?Murphy?and?Sharon?Birenbaum,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. Defendant?Randall?Lee?Cookson?pleaded?nolo?contendere?to?violating?Penal?Code?section?484b?(all?further?statutory?references,?unless?otherwise?noted,?are?to?this?code)?and?was?placed?on?three?years'?probation?on?condition,?inter?alia,?that?he?pay?restitution?as?determined?by?the?probation?department.?Thereafter,?the?department?ordered?that?defendant?pay?$12,000,?and?devised?a?monthly?payment?schedule.?Defendant?made?all?monthly?payments?as?required?by?the?department,?but?at?the?end?of?three?years?he?had?paid?only?a?part?of?the?total?amount?originally?ordered.?On?motion?by?the?department,?the?trial?court?ordered?defendant's?probation?extended?for?two?years?to?assure?further?restitution?would?be?made.?Defendant?challenged?the?imposition?of?an?additional?probationary?period,?contending?the?extension?was?improper?absent?proof?he?had?the?ability?to?pay?and?willfully?failed?to?pay.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed.?For?the?reasons?given?below,?we?affirm?its?decision. Facts In?1985,?Dr.?Robert?Slaughter?paid?defendant?approximately?$18,000?to?build?an?addition?to?Slaughter's?home.?The?addition?was?never?made.?Defendant?later?entered?a?plea?of?nolo?contendere?to?one?count?of?diverting?[54?Cal.3d?1094]?construction?funds?in?excess?of?$1,000?(??484b).?A?presentence?probation?report?valued?the?loss?to?Dr.?Slaughter?at?$12,000.?The?court?sentenced?defendant?to?three?years'?probation?on?condition,?inter?alia,?that?he?serve?a?ninety-day?jail?sentence,?pay?a?$120?restitution?fine?to?the?probation?department,?and?make?restitution?as?determined?by?the?probation?officer.?In?fashioning?its?decree,?the?court?contemplated?that?the?amount?of?restitution?would?equal?the?actual?loss?suffered?by?Dr.?Slaughter.fn.?1 One?week?after?defendant?was?sentenced,?the?probation?department?set?the?ultimate?amount?of?restitution?at?$12,000.?Although?the?record?is?not?entirely?clear,?the?department?at?the?same?time?apparently?fixed?defendant's?monthly?payments?at?$100.?The?payment?amount?was?increased?in?September?1988?to?$135?per?month.?Defendant?made?each?monthly?payment?as?required?by?the?department,?but?pursuant?to?that?schedule?three?years?of?payments?amounted?to?only?$4,085. On?the?day?before?defendant's?probation?was?to?expire,?the?department?filed?a?petition?to?extend?his?probation?for?two?yearsfn.?2?to?allow?continued?supervised?payments?to?Dr.?Slaughter.fn.?3The?trial?court?agreed?to?modify?the?terms?of?probation?and?stated:?"It?is?my?finding?that?...?[the?sentencing?court]?made?two?orders:?that?[defendant]?pay?restitution?in?an?amount?to?be?determined?by?the?probation?officer,?with?the?manner?of?payment?to?be?determined?by?the?probation?officer.?[?]?It?is?the?conclusion?of?this?court?that?[defendant]?has?not?paid?restitution?in?the?amount?determined?by?the?probation?officer,?and?in?fact?owes?[$7,912],?and?therefore?is?in?violation?of?probation.?...?[?]?I'm?just?going?to?advise?you?...?that?were?you?to?divide?the?amount?of?restitution?owed?into?23?equal?parts,?it?would?be?$344?a?month.?I?expect?restitution?to?be?paid?in?the?full?amount."?[54?Cal.3d?1095] Defendant?appealed,?claiming?probation?was?improperly?extended?without?proof?he?willfully?failed?to?pay?restitution?as?ordered.?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed.?It?first?concluded?that?the?trial?court?had?jurisdiction?to?modify?the?probation?because?defendant's?inability?to?pay?amounted?to?a?change?of?circumstances.?Rejecting?contrary?language?in?People?v.?Ryan?(1988)?203?Cal.App.3d?189?[249?Cal.Rptr.?750],?the?court?then?interpreted?section?1203.2?as?enabling?courts?to?modify?a?term?of?probation?for?nonwillful?failure?to?pay?restitution,?even?though?such?a?failure?would?not?support?a?revocation. Discussion [1]?A?court?may?revoke?or?modify?a?term?of?probation?at?any?time?before?the?expiration?of?that?term.?(??1203.3.)?This?power?to?modify?includes?the?power?to?extend?the?probationary?term.?(Ex?Parte?Sizelove?(1910)?158?Cal.?493,?494?[111?P.?527].)?Pursuant?to?section?1203.2,?subdivision?(b)?(hereafter?section?1203.2(b)),?a?court,?on?sufficient?notice?to?the?probationer,?may?"modify,?revoke,?or?terminate?the?probation?of?the?probationer?upon?the?grounds?set?forth?in?[section?1203.2,]?subdivision?(a)?if?the?interests?of?justice?so?require."?(Italics?added.)?Section?1203.2,?subdivision?(a)?(hereafter?section?1203.2(a)),?provides?that?a?court?"may?revoke?and?terminate?such?probation?if?the?interests?of?justice?so?require?and?the?court,?in?its?judgment,?has?reason?to?believe?from?the?report?of?the?probation?officer?or?otherwise?that?the?person?has?violated?any?of?the?conditions?of?his?or?her?probation,?has?become?abandoned?to?improper?associates?or?a?vicious?life,?or?has?subsequently?committed?other?offenses,?regardless?whether?he?or?she?has?been?prosecuted?for?such?offenses.?However,?probation?shall?not?be?revoked?for?failure?of?a?person?to?make?restitution?...?unless?the?court?determines?that?the?defendant?has?willfully?failed?to?pay?and?has?the?ability?to?pay." A?change?in?circumstances?is?required?before?a?court?has?jurisdiction?to?extend?or?otherwise?modify?probation.?As?we?held?in?In?re?Clark?(1959)?51?Cal.2d?838?[337?P.2d?67],?"An?order?modifying?the?terms?of?probation?based?upon?the?same?facts?as?the?original?order?granting?probation?is?in?excess?of?the?jurisdiction?of?the?court,?for?the?reason?that?there?is?no?factual?basis?to?support?it."?(Id.?at?p.?840,?italics?added.)?In?this?case,?the?Court?of?Appeal?correctly?determined?that?a?change?in?circumstance?could?be?found?in?a?fact?"not?available?at?the?time?of?the?original?order,"?namely,?"that?setting?the?pay?schedule?consistent?with?defendant's?ability?to?pay?had?resulted?in?defendant's?inability?to?pay?full?restitution?as?contemplated?within?the?original?period?of?probation."…
People?v.?Bacigalupo?(1991)?1?Cal.4th?103?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?335;?820?P.2d?559 [No.?S004764. Dec?9,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MIGUEL?ANGEL?BACIGALUPO,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?93351,?Thomas?C.?Hastings,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.J.,?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?concurring?in?the?judgment.) COUNSEL Cliff?Gardner?and?Melissa?Johnson,?under?appointments?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?[1?Cal.4th?118]?Gillette?and?Christopher?J.?Wei,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION KENNARD,?J. This?is?an?automatic?appeal?from?a?judgment?of?death.?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b);?unless?otherwise?indicated?all?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code.)?A?jury?convicted?defendant?Miguel?Angel?Bacigalupo?of?two?counts?of?first?degree?murder?(??187)?and?two?counts?of?robbery?(??211).?The?jury?found?to?be?true?allegations?of?a?multiple-?murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(3))?and,?as?to?each?count?of?murder,?a?robbery-murder?special?circumstance?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?The?jury?also?found?that?defendant?had?personally?used?a?firearm?in?committing?the?murders?and?robberies.?(??12022.5.) Defendant?waived?the?right?to?a?jury?trial?on?a?charge?of?possession?of?a?concealed?firearm?by?an?ex-felon?(??12021)?and?on?two?allegations?that?he?had?suffered?prior?felony?convictions.?After?hearing?testimony,?the?trial?court?convicted?defendant?of?the?charge,?found?one?prior?felony?allegation?to?be?not?true,?but?sustained?the?allegation?that?defendant?previously?had?been?convicted?and?sentenced?to?prison?in?New?York?for?selling?cocaine?(??667.5,?subd.?(b)). We?affirm?the?judgment?in?its?entirety. Facts Guilt?Phase?Evidence Orestes?Guerrero,?a?Peruvian?immigrant,?owned?a?jewelry?store?in?San?Jose.?Defendant's?mother,?Dina?Padilla?Golden,?who?is?also?from?Peru,?met?Orestes?through?friends?in?the?Peruvian?community?in?early?1983.?When?defendant's?mother?learned?that?defendant?was?moving?from?New?York?to?Palo?Alto,?she?asked?Guerrero?to?give?him?a?job?in?the?store?and?to?train?him?in?the?jewelry?trade. In?October?1983,?defendant?moved?from?New?York?to?California,?where?he?lived?with?his?mother?and?stepfather?in?their?Palo?Alto?apartment.?He?found?work?as?a?dishwasher?at?a?restaurant,?but?soon?left?for?another?job.?On?the?morning?of?December?29,?1983,?defendant?told?his?mother?and?stepfather?he?had?quit?this?second?job. Carlos?Valdiviezo?lived?in?Orestes?Guerrero's?jewelry?store.?He?had?left?Peru?and?entered?the?United?States?illegally?with?Orestes's?brother,?Jose?Luis?[1?Cal.4th?119]?Guerrero.?On?the?morning?of?December?28,?1983,?Valdiviezo?saw?defendant?in?the?jewelry?store?with?Orestes?and?Jose?Guerrero.?Valdiviezo?heard?Orestes?say?that?defendant?was?the?son?of?a?Peruvian?woman?and?that?he?had?been?recommended?to?work?in?the?jewelry?store.?fn.?1 The?next?morning,?Valdiviezo?and?Orestes?Guerrero?put?jewelry?into?the?jewelry?cases?in?the?front?area?of?the?store.?The?two?men?then?left?the?store?to?pick?up?some?diamonds;?they?returned?shortly?before?noon.?Half?an?hour?later,?defendant?arrived?at?the?jewelry?store;?he?was?given?the?task?of?operating?a?silverthreading?machine?used?in?making?jewelry.?While?assisting?defendant,?who?seemed?to?be?having?trouble?operating?the?machine,?Valdiviezo?noticed?that?defendant?was?quite?nervous.?Valdiviezo?then?left?the?jewelry?store?to?change?the?spark?plugs?in?Orestes?Guerrero's?car.…
Mitchell?v.?Gonzales?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1041?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?913;?819?P.2d?872 [No.?S018678.?Dec?9,?1991.] JAMES?MITCHELL?et?al.,?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants,?v.?JOSE?L.?GONZALES?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Respondents. (Superior?Court?of?San?Bernardino?County,?No.?SCV?237329,?Don?A.?Turner,?Judge.fn.?*?) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Mosk,?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.) COUNSEL Edward?J.?Horowitz,?Greenberg?&?Panish?and?David?Greenberg?for?Plaintiffs?and?Appellants. Bodkin,?McCarthy,?Sargent?&?Smith?and?Richard?P.?Kinnan?for?Defendants?and?Respondents. Rogers,?Joseph,?O'Donnell?&?Quinn,?Joseph?W.?Rogers,?Susan?M.?Popik,?Richard?D.?Shively,?Thelen,?Marrin,?Johnson?&?Bridges,?Lee?A.?McCoy?and?Curtis?A.?Cole?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Respondents. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case?we?decide?whether?BAJI?No.?3.75,fn.?1?the?so-called?proximate?cause?instruction,?which?contains?a?"but?for"?test?of?cause?in?fact,?should?continue?to?be?given?in?this?state,?or?whether?it?should?be?disapproved?in?favor?of?BAJI?No.?3.76,?the?so-called?legal?cause?instruction,?which?employs?the?"substantial?factor"?test?of?cause?in?fact.fn.?2 Plaintiffs?James?and?Joyce?Mitchell,?the?parents?of?12-year-old?Damechie?Mitchell,?who?drowned?in?Lake?Gregory?on?July?4,?1985,?sued?defendants?Jose?L.?Gonzales,?Matilde?Gonzales,?and?Mrs.?Gonzales's?son?Luis?(hereafter?defendants)?for?damages,?claiming?defendants'?negligence?caused?Damechie's?death.?By?special?verdict,?the?jury?found?that?defendants?were?negligent,?i.e.,?they?had?breached?a?duty,?but?that?the?negligence?was?not?a?proximate?cause?of?the?death. The?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that,?under?the?facts,?the?trial?court?erred?when?it?denied?plaintiffs'?request?to?instruct?the?jury?pursuant?to?BAJI?No.?[54?Cal.3d?1045]?3.76?and?instead?instructed?under?BAJI?No.?3.75.?After?reviewing?both?instructions,?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?is?potentially?misleading?and?should?not?have?been?given,?and?that?the?trial?court?committed?prejudicial?error?when?it?refused?to?give?BAJI?No.?3.76. We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?determine?whether?courts?should?continue?to?instruct?juries?on?cause?in?fact?using?BAJI?No.?3.75?in?light?of?the?frequent?criticism?of?that?instruction.?We?conclude?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct?and?that?BAJI?No.?3.75?should?be?disapproved. Facts Damechie,?12?years?old,?standing?4?feet?11?inches?tall,?and?weighing?90?pounds,?had?a?tag-along?little-brother?relationship?with?his?friend?Luis,?who?was?14?years?old,?5?feet?4?inches?tall,?and?weighed?190?pounds.?The?Gonzales?invited?Damechie?to?accompany?them?to?Lake?Gregory?for?the?Fourth?of?July.?According?to?Mrs.?Mitchell's?testimony,?when?Mrs.?Gonzales?called?her?to?ask?whether?Damechie?could?accompany?them,?she?informed?Mrs.?Gonzales?that?Damechie?could?not?swim.?After?Mrs.?Gonzales?suggested?that?the?boys?would?play?in?the?shallow?edge?of?the?lake,?the?Mitchells?agreed?that?Damechie?could?go,?as?long?as?he?was?restricted?to?the?edge?of?the?lake. Mrs.?Gonzales?denied?that?she?had?told?Mrs.?Mitchell?the?children?would?be?swimming?or?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?had?told?her?Damechie?could?not?swim. According?to?Mrs.?Mitchell,?while?Damechie?was?packing,?he,?Luis,?and?Luis's?sister,?Yoshi,?talked?about?swimming.?Mrs.?Mitchell?told?the?children?Damechie?could?not?swim?and?should?not?go?swimming.?Luis?and?Yoshi?said?they?would?watch?Damechie. Luis?testified?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?did?not?tell?him?that?Damechie?could?not?swim.?He?did?remember?telling?her?they?were?going?swimming,?but?he?did?not?remember?what?she?said?about?it.?He?also?remembered?that?Mrs.?Mitchell?told?him?to?watch?out?for?Damechie?because?Luis?was?bigger?and?older?than?Damechie.…
Whitman?v.?Superior?Court?(People)?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1063?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?160;?820?P.2d?262 [No.?S018847.?Dec?9,?1991.] THOMAS?PAUL?WHITMAN,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?SANTA?CLARA?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?PEOPLE,?Real?Party?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?141525,?Nathan?D.?Mihara,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.?concurring?in?the?judgment.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?by?Kennard,?J.) COUNSEL Stuart?Rappaport,?Public?Defender,?Susan?R.?Bernardini?and?Barbara?B.?Fargo,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?for?Petitioner. Wilbur?F.?Littlefield,?Public?Defender?(Los?Angeles),?Laurence?M.?Sarnoff?and?Albert?J.?Menaster,?Deputy?Public?Defenders,?Gary?M.?Madinach?and?Madeline?McDowell?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner. No?Appearance?for?Respondent. Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorney?General,?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Clifford?K.?Thompson,?Jr.,?Laurence?K.?Sullivan?and?Joan?Killeen?Haller,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Party?In?Interest. Dennis?Kottmeier,?District?Attorney?(San?Bernadino),?Joseph?A.?Burns,?Deputy?District?Attorney,?Kent?S.?Scheidegger?and?Charles?L.?Hobson?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Party?in?Interest. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case,?we?resolve?some?issues?presented?by?the?adoption?in?June?1990?of?an?initiative?measure?designated?on?the?ballot?as?Proposition?115?and?entitled?the?"Crime?Victims?Justice?Reform?Act."?Petitioner?[54?Cal.3d?1068]?herein?raises?various?challenges?under?the?federal?and?state?Constitutions?to?the?provisions?of?the?measure?that?authorize?the?admission?of?hearsay?evidence?at?preliminary?hearings?in?criminal?cases.?(See?also?Izazaga?v.?Superior?Court,?ante,?p.?356?[285?Cal.Rptr.?231,?815?P.2d?304]?[challenge?to?reciprocal?discovery?provisions?of?Prop.?115];?Tapia?v.?Superior?Court?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?282?[279?Cal.Rptr.?592,?807?P.2d?434]?[challenge?to?retroactive?application?of?Prop.?115];?Raven?v.?Deukmejian?(1990)?52?Cal.3d?336?[276?Cal.Rptr.?326,?801?P.2d?1077]?[single-subject?and?revision?challenges?to?Prop.?115].)?He?also?contests?the?sufficiency?and?competency?of?the?evidence?presented?at?his?preliminary?hearing. As?will?appear,?we?conclude?that,?properly?construed?and?applied,?the?hearsay?provisions?of?Proposition?115?are?constitutionally?valid.?We?also?conclude,?however,?that?the?evidence?admitted?at?petitioner's?preliminary?hearing,?consisting?entirely?of?hearsay?testimony?by?a?noninvestigating?officer?lacking?any?personal?knowledge?of?the?case,?was?insufficient?and?incompetent?to?constitute?probable?cause?to?bind?petitioner?over?for?trial,?and?that?his?motion?to?dismiss?the?charges?should?have?been?granted. Facts Petitioner?was?charged?with?one?felony?count?of?driving?under?the?influence?of?alcohol?and/or?drugs?with?three?or?more?prior?similar?convictions?(Veh.?Code,????23152,?subd.?(a),?23175),?one?felony?count?of?driving?with?a?blood-alcohol?level?of?0.08?percent?or?more?(id.,????23152,?subd.?(b),?23175),?as?well?as?misdemeanor?counts?of?driving?with?a?suspended?or?revoked?license?(id.,???14601.2,?subd.?(a)),?and?being?under?the?influence?of?methamphetamine?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11550).?These?offenses?were?alleged?to?have?occurred?on?August?8,?1990.?A?preliminary?hearing?was?held?on?September?19,?1990,?leading?to?the?filing?of?an?information?containing?these?charges. At?the?hearing,?the?People?called?only?a?single?witness,?Officer?Bruce?Alexander,?who?was?not?one?of?the?arresting?or?investigating?officers?and?who?had?no?direct,?personal?knowledge?of?petitioner's?alleged?offenses.?Over?petitioner's?continuing?objection?to?the?use?of?hearsay?evidence,?Alexander?attested?to?his?eight?years?of?employment?as?a?police?officer,?and?thereupon?recounted?to?the?magistrate?various?entries?made?in?the?report?of?the?investigating?officer,?Officer?Navin.?Alexander?confirmed?that?he?had?never?discussed?Navin's?report?with?that?officer,?was?not?personally?acquainted?with?Navin,?and?first?became?aware?of?Navin's?report,?and?of?the?case?against?petitioner,?on?the?morning?of?the?preliminary?hearing?after?the?district?attorney?handed?him?a?copy?of?Navin's?report.?[54?Cal.3d?1069] In?response?to?the?prosecutor's?questioning,?Alexander?indicated?that,?according?to?Navin's?report,?on?August?8,?while?in?a?marked?patrol?car,?Navin?saw?a?1969?Chevrolet?traveling?eastbound?on?Cherry?Avenue.?Navin?heard?someone?shout?and?saw?the?driver?of?the?Chevrolet?lean?out?the?window?to?raise?his?right?fist.?Navin?watched?as?a?white?Ford?quickly?passed?the?Chevrolet.?Navin?paced?the?Chevrolet,?which?was?traveling?50?miles?per?hour?in?a?40?miles?per?hour?zone.?Navin?thereupon?made?a?traffic?stop. Alexander?further?testified?that,?according?to?Navin's?report,?the?driver?of?the?car?identified?himself?as?Thomas?Paul?Whitman.?Among?other?things,?Navin?noticed?the?strong?odor?of?alcohol,?bloodshot?eyes,?and?dilated?pupils.?The?driver's?mood?changed?from?passive?to?belligerent,?leading?Navin?to?believe?that?the?driver?might?be?under?the?influence?of?drugs.?Alexander?continued?his?"testimony,"?relating,?according?to?Navin,?that?the?driver?successfully?completed?the?finger-dexterity?test?and?balanced?on?one?foot,?but?swayed?when?asked?to?walk?a?straight?line.?Believing?the?driver?was?under?the?influence,?Navin?transported?him?to?the?station?where?a?blood?test?was?administered.?Counsel?stipulated?that?a?blood?test?revealed?a?blood-?alcohol?level?of?0.08?percent?and?was?positive?for?the?presence?of?methamphetamine.…
People?v.?Ashmus?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?932?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?112;?820?P.2d?214 [No.?S004723. Dec?5,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?TROY?ADAM?ASHMUS,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?San?Mateo?County,?No.?C-?15661,?Alan?W.?Haverty,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Linda?F.?Robertson,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Charles?Bush?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Dane?R.?Gillette,?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson?and?Ronald?S.?Matthias,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION MOSK,?J. This?is?an?automatic?appeal?(Pen.?Code,???1239,?subd.?(b))?from?a?judgment?of?death?under?the?1978?death?penalty?law?(id.,???190?et?seq.). On?August?17,?1984,?the?District?Attorney?of?Sacramento?County?filed?an?information?against?defendant?Troy?Adam?Ashmus?in?the?superior?court?of?that?county. Count?I?charged?that?on?May?19,?1984,?defendant?murdered?Marcella?D.?in?violation?of?Penal?Code?section?187.?It?was?alleged?that?he?committed?the?[54?Cal.3d?952]?offense?under?the?following?special?circumstances:?(1)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?rape?under?Penal?Code?section?261,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(iii);?(2)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?sodomy?under?Penal?Code?section?286,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(iv);?and?(3)?felony?murder?in?the?course?of?a?lewd?or?lascivious?act?on?the?person?of?a?child?under?14?years?of?age?under?Penal?Code?section?288,?within?the?meaning?of?Penal?Code?section?190.2,?subdivision?(a)(17)(v).?Counts?II,?III,?and?IV?charged,?respectively,?that?on?that?same?date?defendant?engaged?in?rape,?sodomy,?and?lewd?or?lascivious?conduct?against?the?same?victim,?in?violation?of?the?statutory?provisions?cited?above-specifically,?as?to?rape,?former?subdivision?(2)?(current?subd.?(a)(2))?of?Penal?Code?section?261?(Stats.?1983,?ch.?949,???1,?p.?3416);?as?to?sodomy,?subdivision?(c)?of?Penal?Code?section?286;?and?as?to?lewd?or?lascivious?conduct,?subdivision?(b)?of?Penal?Code?section?288. Defendant?pleaded?not?guilty?to?the?charges?and?denied?the?special?circumstance?allegations.?On?his?motion,?the?court?subsequently?changed?venue?from?Sacramento?to?San?Mateo?County. Trial?was?by?jury.?The?jury?returned?verdicts?finding?defendant?guilty?as?charged,?determined?the?murder?to?be?of?the?first?degree,?and?found?all?the?special?circumstance?allegations?true.?It?subsequently?returned?a?verdict?of?death.?The?court?entered?judgment?accordingly,?sentencing?defendant?to?death?for?the?murder?and?to?full,?separate,?and?consecutive?middle?terms?of?six?years?in?prison?for?each?of?the?three?noncapital?offenses. As?we?shall?explain,?we?conclude?that?the?judgment?must?be?affirmed. Facts Guilt?Phase Most?of?the?basic?facts?relevant?here?were?essentially?undisputed?at?trial.…
People?v.?Walker?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1013?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?902;?819?P.2d?861 [No.?S017854.?Dec?5,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DEXTER?M.?WALKER,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?San?Bernardino?County,?No.?SCR46930,?Michael?A.?Smith,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Harvey?E.?Goldfine,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?and?Robert?M.?Foster,?Deputy?Attorney?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION ARABIAN,?J. We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?resolve?a?conflict?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?over?the?proper?means?of?remedying?the?erroneous?imposition?of?a?restitution?fine.?As?explained?below,?we?order?the?restitution?fine?of?this?case?reduced?to?the?statutory?minimum?of?$100. Facts Defendant?was?charged?by?information?with?two?felony?counts,?including,?in?count?2,?the?attempted?use?of?a?destructive?device?with?the?intent?to?injure?or?intimidate.?(Pen.?Code,???12303.3.)fn.?1?According?to?the?probation?report,?defendant?placed?in?his?ex-wife's?car?a?bomb?which?was?designed?to?detonate?when?the?brake?lights?or?headlights?were?activated.?Fortunately,?the?bomb?was?discovered?and?defused?before?it?exploded. On?April?21,?1988,?pursuant?to?a?plea?bargain,?defendant?pleaded?guilty?to?count?2.?The?district?attorney?and?defendant?agreed?that?in?return?for?the?[54?Cal.3d?1019]?guilty?plea,?count?1?would?be?dismissed,?and?defendant?would?be?sentenced?to?state?prison?for?the?midterm?of?five?years?with?credit?for?time?served.?Defendant?signed?a?change?of?plea?form,?and?initialed?his?understanding?of?the?agreement.?He?waived?his?constitutional?rights.?The?court?orally?explained?to?defendant?that?"the?maximum?penalties?provided?by?law?for?this?offense?are?either?3?years,?5?years,?or?7?years?in?state?prison?and?a?fine?of?up?to?$10,000,"?followed?by?a?period?of?parole. The?court?sentenced?defendant?immediately?after?the?guilty?plea.?In?accordance?with?the?plea?bargain,?it?imposed?a?five-year?prison?sentence?and?awarded?credit?for?time?served.?It?also?imposed?a?restitution?fine?of?$5,000,?although?the?plea?agreement?did?not?mention?such?a?fine.?The?probation?report?prepared?before?the?plea,?and?supplied?to?the?defense,?recommended?a?$7,000?restitution?fine;?the?record?discloses?no?other?mention?of?the?possibility?of?such?a?fine?prior?to?sentencing.?Defendant?did?not?object?to?the?fine?at?sentencing. Defendant?appealed?on?the?sole?ground?that?the?restitution?fine?was?not?part?of?the?plea?bargain,?and?should?be?stricken.?The?Court?of?Appeal?found?error,?but?held?that?the?only?remedy?was?to?allow?defendant?to?withdraw?his?guilty?plea?and,?if?he?chose?to?do?so,?to?reinstate?the?dismissed?count.?Accordingly,?it?reversed?the?judgment?and?remanded?the?matter?to?the?trial?court.?We?granted?review?to?consider?the?propriety?of?that?disposition. Discussion Background A?person?convicted?of?a?felony?faces?the?possible?imposition?of?two?different?kinds?of?fine.?First?is?a?penal?fine,?up?to?$10,000?in?this?case.?(???672,?12303.3.)?The?court?"may"?impose?this?fine.?(??672.)?Second?is?a?restitution?fine.?As?relevant?to?this?case,?the?court?"shall"?impose?a?restitution?fine?of?at?least?$100?and?not?more?than?$10,000?(Gov.?Code,???13967,?subd.?(a))?"regardless?of?the?defendant's?present?ability?to?pay.?However,?if?the?court?finds?that?there?are?compelling?and?extraordinary?reasons,?the?court?may?waive?imposition?of?the?fine.?When?such?a?waiver?is?granted,?the?court?shall?state?on?the?record?all?reasons?supporting?the?waiver."?(??1202.4,?subd.?(a).)?"This?statutory?requirement?is?the?result?of?a?constitutional?amendment?adopted?by?the?voters?as?part?of?Proposition?8.?(See?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???28,?subd.?(b).)"?(People?v.?Davis?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?1305,?1309?[252?Cal.Rptr.?924].)…
People?v.?Bennett?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1032?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?8;?819?P.2d?849 [No.?S018584.?Dec?5,?1991.] THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?JOHN?BENNETT,?JR.,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Sonoma?County,?No.?16288-C,?Arnold?D.?Rosenfield,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Fern?M.?Laethem,?State?Public?Defender,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Jeanne?Wolfe,?Deputy?State?Public?Defender,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?John?H.?Sugiyama,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Herbert?F.?Wilkinson,?Morris?Beatus?and?David?D.?Salmon,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION MOSK,?J. Defendant?appeals?from?a?conviction?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?(Pen.?Code,???191.5,?subd.?(a).)fn.?1?The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed?the?conviction.?Defendant?contends?the?trial?court?erroneously?instructed?the?jury?that?it?could?find?gross?negligence?from?"the?overall?circumstances?of?[his]?intoxication."?(CALJIC?No.?8.94?(5th?ed.?1988?bound?vol.).)?For?the?reasons?stated?below?we?conclude?that?the?instruction?is?correct,?and?we?therefore?affirm?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. I. Late?in?the?afternoon?of?December?11,?1988,?defendant,?a?30-year-old?male,?and?2?friends?who?were?each?less?than?21?years?of?age?(see?Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???25658),?began?drinking?from?a?"party?ball"?of?beer-a?keg?approximately?18?inches?in?diameter?and?a?foot?long.?After?an?hour?or?so,?defendant?drove?the?two?teenagers?to?the?beach?in?his?pickup?truck.?There?they?met?another?friend?and?continued?drinking?from?the?"party?ball."?The?four?"pretty?well?killed?the?entire?thing"?before?they?left?after?sunset.?The?victim?and?one?friend?rode?with?defendant?while?the?third?friend?followed?in?his?own?car. Described?by?one?witness?as?"pretty?drunk,"?defendant?was?weaving?in?and?out?of?his?traffic?lane?as?he?drove?inland?from?the?beach.?The?third?friend?tried?to?signal?defendant?that?his?truck?was?drifting?off?the?road?by?honking?his?horn?and?flashing?his?lights.?As?defendant?approached?a?blind?curve?on?a?downgrade,?he?crossed?the?double?yellow?line?and?passed?three?cars.?He?was?[54?Cal.3d?1035]?driving?approximately?10?miles?over?the?speed?limit?when?he?lost?control?of?his?vehicle?at?the?bottom?of?the?hill. Defendant's?truck?went?off?the?road,?came?back?and?rolled?over?five?or?six?times.?All?three?occupants?were?ejected.?Defendant?and?one?passenger?survived?with?minor?injuries;?the?other?passenger?died.?Defendant's?blood-?alcohol?level?two?hours?later?was?0.20?percent. Defendant?was?convicted?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?(??191.5,?subd.?(a).)?Section?191.5?as?charged?defines?the?offense?as?the?unlawful?killing?of?a?human?being?without?malice,?while?driving?under?the?influence,?in?the?commission?of?an?unlawful?act?not?amounting?to?a?felony,?and?with?gross?negligence. The?only?contested?issue?at?trial?was?whether?defendant?was?grossly?negligent.?In?accordance?with?CALJIC?No.?8.94,?the?jury?was?instructed?to?determine?gross?negligence?from?"the?overall?circumstances?of?the?defendant's?intoxication?or?the?manner?in?which?he?drove,?or?both?...."?(Italics?added.) [1a]?On?appeal,?defendant?challenged?this?instruction.?He?argued?that?it?erroneously?allowed?the?jury?to?find?gross?negligence?from?the?circumstances?of?his?intoxication?alone,?without?regard?to?his?manner?of?driving.?In?affirming?the?judgment,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?the?instruction?was?correct. II. To?determine?the?propriety?of?the?challenged?instruction,?we?must?examine?the?Penal?Code's?definition?of?gross?vehicular?manslaughter?while?intoxicated.?The?history?of?the?legislation?is?instructive.…
City?of?Moorpark?v.?Moorpark?Unified?School?Dist.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?921?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?896;?819?P.2d?854 [No.?S019591.?Dec?5,?1991.] CITY?OF?MOORPARK,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?MOORPARK?UNIFIED?SCHOOL?DISTRICT?et?al.,?Defendants?and?Appellants. (Superior?Court?of?Ventura?County,?No.?106606,?Bruce?A.?Thompson,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Bergman?&?Wedner,?Gregory?M.?Bergman,?Richard?V.?Godino?and?Robert?M.?Mason?III?for?Defendants?and?Appellants.?[54?Cal.3d?923] Bowie,?Arneson,?Kadi?&?Dixon,?Carol?J.?Graham,?Wendy?H.?Wiles,?Ronald?D.?Wenkart,?Claire?Y.?Morey,?Geraldine?Jaffe?and?Val?R.?Fadely?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Defendants?and?Appellants. Cheryl?J.?Kane,?City?Attorney,?Burke,?Williams?&?Sorenson,?Lisa?E.?Kranitz?and?Peter?D.?Tremblay?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. Stephanie?Scher,?City?Attorney?(La?Canada-Flintridge),?Brown,?Winfield?&?Canzoneri?and?Virginia?R.?Pesola?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent. OPINION LUCAS,?C.?J. In?this?case?we?construe?for?the?first?time?the?Naylor?Act?(Ed.?Code,????39390-39404;fn.?1hereafter?the?Act),?which?governs?the?disposal?of?certain?kinds?of?surplus?school?property.?The?City?of?Moorpark?(hereafter?City)?petitioned?the?superior?court?for?a?writ?of?mandate?to?compel?the?Moorpark?Unified?School?District?(hereafter?District)?to?transfer?school?property,?pursuant?to?the?Act.?After?the?court?granted?the?petition,?District?appealed.?The?Court?of?Appeal,?affirming?the?superior?court,?concluded?that?the?Act's?provisions?regarding?surplus?school?property?displaced?the?common?law?of?contracts,?that?a?binding?contract?for?sale?had?been?made?under?the?Act,?and?that?District?acted?capriciously?when?it?purported?to?exempt?the?school?site?from?the?Act.?We?reverse?the?Court?of?Appeal's?decision. The?Act In?the?preamble?to?the?Act,?the?Legislature?expressed?its?concern?"that?school?playgrounds,?playing?fields?and?recreational?real?property?will?be?lost?for?such?uses?by?the?surrounding?communities?even?where?those?communities?in?their?planning?process?have?assumed?that?such?properties?would?be?permanently?available?for?recreational?purposes."?(??39390.)?The?Legislature?explicitly?stated?its?intention?"to?allow?school?districts?to?recover?their?investment?in?such?surplus?property?while?making?it?possible?for?other?agencies?of?government?to?acquire?the?property?and?keep?it?available?for?playground,?playing?field?or?other?outdoor?recreational?and?open-space?purposes."?(Ibid.)?The?net?effect?of?the?Act?is?to?make?surplus?school?property?available?to?local?communities?at?less?than?present?market?value,?[54?Cal.3d?924]?while?assuring?that?participating?school?districts?recover?at?least?the?cost?of?acquiring?the?property. The?Act?applies?when?a?school?district?determines?to?sell?or?lease?a?school?site,?if?three?conditions?are?met:?(1)?All?or?part?of?the?school?site?consists?of?land?used?for?school?playground,?playing?field,?or?other?outdoor?recreational?purposes,?and?open-space?land?particularly?suited?for?recreational?purposes;?(2)?the?land?has?been?used?for?at?least?one?of?the?foregoing?purposes?for?at?least?eight?years?immediately?preceding?the?decision?to?sell?or?lease?the?site;?and?(3)?the?public?entity?proposing?to?purchase?or?lease?the?land?determines?that?no?other?public?land?in?the?vicinity?of?the?site?is?adequate?to?meet?community?needs?for?playground,?playing?field?or?other?outdoor?recreational?and?open-space?purposes.?(??39391.) Before?a?public?agency?may?purchase?property?pursuant?to?the?Act,?it?must?adopt?a?plan?that?designates?the?areas?of?the?school?site?the?agency?does?and?does?not?desire.?(??39397.5.) Once?a?school?district?decides?to?sell?or?lease?a?school?site?containing?land?described?in?section?39391,?the?sale?or?lease?of?such?land?must?be?in?accordance?with?the?Act.?(??39393.)?A?district?may?retain?any?part?of?a?school?site?containing?buildings?along?with?adjacent?land?sufficient?to?avoid?reducing?the?value?of?the?part?of?the?school?site?containing?the?building?to?less?than?50?percent?of?fair?market?value.?(??39395.)?Before?a?district?sells?or?leases?a?school?site?containing?section?39391?land,?the?district?must?first?offer?to?sell?or?lease?the?portion?of?the?school?site?containing?section?39391?land,?excluding?retained?land,?to?a?variety?of?public?agencies?according?to?the?priority?established?by?the?Act.?(??39394.)?The?district?has?"discretion?to?determine?whether?the?offer?shall?be?an?offer?to?sell?or?an?offer?to?lease."?(Ibid.) The?Act?provides?that?the?sales?price?for?section?39391?land?shall?not?exceed?the?district's?cost?of?acquisition?with?certain?adjustments?for?inflation?and?improvements.?In?addition?to?this?maximum?price,?the?Act?establishes?a?price?floor?of?either?25?percent?of?fair?market?value?or?an?amount?related?to?bonded?indebtedness.?(??39396,?subd.?(a).)?Likewise,?the?Act?sets?a?maximum?annual?lease?rate.?(??39396,?subd.?(c).)?A?district?that?offers?a?portion?of?a?school?site?for?sale?may?do?so?at?fair?market?value,?provided?the?district?"offers?an?equivalent?size?alternative?portion?of?that?school?site?for?school?playground,?playing?field,?or?other?recreational?and?open-space?purposes."?(??39396,?subd.?(b).) Section?39402?provides?that?a?school?district?may,?as?an?alternative?to?a?sale?or?a?lease?pursuant?to?other?provisions?of?the?Act,?enter?into?other?[54?Cal.3d?925]?agreements?to?dispose?of?the?land,?such?as?a?lease?purchase.?If?the?lessee?or?grantee?has?zoning?powers,?the?alternative?agreement?may?require?the?entity?to?rezone?any?portion?of?the?school?site?retained?by?the?district.?(??39402.)…
In?re?Richard?S.?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?857?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?2;?819?P.2d?843 [No.?S016631.?Dec?2,?1991.] In?re?RICHARD?S.,?a?Person?Coming?Under?the?Juvenile?Court?Law. PEDRO?R.?SILVA,?as?Chief?Probation?Officer,?etc.,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?LORI?S.,?Defendant?and?Appellant. (Superior?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?No.?97327,?Kristine?Mackin?McCarthy,?Temporary?Judge.fn.?*?) (Opinion?by?Mosk,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.) COUNSEL Dallas?Sacher,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?and?Margaritay?Lopez?Orozco,?under?appointment?by?the?Court?of?Appeal,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant. Steven?M.?Woodside,?County?Counsel,?Vanessa?Zecher?Cain?and?Diane?L.?Bennett,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.?[54?Cal.3d?860] Leo?Himmelsbach,?District?Attorney,?Daniel?A.?Palmer?and?Penelope?M.?Blake,?Deputy?District?Attorneys,?for?Minor. OPINION MOSK,?J. The?question?before?us?is?whether?a?referee?lacks?jurisdiction?to?enter?a?final?order?in?a?juvenile?matter?if?the?superior?court?fails?to?strictly?follow?the?provisions?of?rule?244?of?the?California?Rules?of?Court?in?appointing?the?referee?as?a?temporary?judge.?We?determine?that?error?in?failing?to?follow?rule?244?is?not?jurisdictional?when?the?parties?have?stipulated?to?trial?by?temporary?judge?and?the?requirements?of?article?VI,?section?21?of?the?California?Constitution?are?otherwise?met. I During?a?custody?dispute?in?the?family?court,?when?it?appeared?that?the?family?court?services?custody?evaluation?would?recommend?that?father?should?receive?custody?of?the?child,?the?child?made?an?accusation?of?sexual?abuse?against?father.?The?county?filed?a?petition?under?Welfare?and?Institutions?Code?section?300?to?declare?the?child?a?dependent?ward?of?the?juvenile?court. On?April?22,?1988,?Kristine?Mackin?McCarthy,?referee?of?the?Juvenile?Court?of?Santa?Clara?County,?ordered?that?the?child?be?placed?in?protective?custody?in?juvenile?hall.?The?form?order,?clearly?referring?to?McCarthy?as?a?referee,?set?a?hearing?in?the?matter?in?department?IV?of?the?juvenile?court?for?May?13,?1988. On?May?13,?1988,?the?matter?was?continued?by?Referee?McCarthy.?The?clerk's?transcript?notation?of?this?hearing?referred?to?her?as?a?judge.?The?clerk's?transcript?also?contains?a?form?stipulation?dated?May?20,?1988,?in?which?the?attorney?representing?the?child,?and?the?two?attorneys?representing?mother?and?father,?signed?the?written?stipulation?that?McCarthy?"be?appointed?Judge?Pro?Tempore?of?the?Superior?Court?to?try?this?action."?The?form?calls?for?the?signature?of?a?judge?of?the?superior?court?approving?the?referee's?appointment?as?a?temporary?judge,?but?no?such?signature?appears.?McCarthy?entered?her?signature?indicating?that?she?had?subscribed?to?the?oath?of?office. The?jurisdictional?hearing?commenced?on?November?4,?1988,?the?court?reporter?noting?that?the?judge?presiding?was?the?Honorable?Kristine?[54?Cal.3d?861]?McCarthy,?"Judge?Pro?Tempore."fn.?1At?the?conclusion?of?the?hearing?on?Monday,?November?21,?1988,?at?which?the?court?found?the?child?a?dependent?ward?of?the?court?and?ordered?him?placed?in?his?father's?custody,?the?court?advised?the?parties?of?their?right?of?appeal?to?the?Court?of?Appeal.fn.?2 The?clerk's?transcript?also?contains?another?form?stipulation,?dated?November?10,?1988,?and?stamped?as?filed?on?November?22,?1988,?in?which?counsel?for?mother?and?father?signed?a?stipulation?to?McCarthy?presiding?as?"Judge?Pro?Tempore."?The?portion?of?the?form?noting?that?the?superior?court?ordered?McCarthy?appointed?as?a?temporary?judge?is?signed?by?a?judge?of?the?superior?court,?and?McCarthy?again?entered?her?signature?indicating?that?she?had?taken?the?oath?of?office. Mother?appealed,?arguing,?among?other?things,?that?the?court's?order?was?void?because?of?defects?in?the?stipulation?and?order?authorizing?the?referee?to?sit?as?a?temporary?judge.?The?Court?of?Appeal?rejected?these?arguments?and?affirmed?the?judgment.…