Supreme Court Oral Argument

View briefs for this oral argument sessions here.

View the recorded webcast with relevant documents here.

In accordance with Administrative Order 2023-05-11, the Supreme Court has resumed in-person oral argument sessions.  Counsel have the option to appear in person at these sessions, or remotely via video.  The public may attend in person and will also continue to have access to argument via live-streaming on the judicial branch website:  https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/.

The following cases are placed upon the calendar of the Supreme Court for hearing at its courtroom in the Ronald M. George State Office Complex, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California, on September 6, 2023.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 — 1:30 P.M.

(1)                   People v. Salazar (Norman Thomas), S275788

(2)                   People v. Curiel (Freddy Alfredo), S272238                      

(3)                   Gantner (Anthony) v. PG&E Corporation et al., S273340 (Kruger, J. not participating; O’Rourke, J., assigned justice pro tempore)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 — 1:30 P.M.  

(1)  People v. Salazar (Norman Thomas), S275788 #22-264  People v. Salazar, S275788.  (B309803; 80 Cal.App.5th 453; Ventura County Superior Court; 2018027995.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  The court limited review to the following issue:  Did the Court of Appeal err by finding the record clearly indicates the trial court would not have imposed a low term sentence if it had been fully aware of its discretion under newly-added subdivision (b)(6) of Penal Code section 1170? (See People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.)

(2)  People v. Curiel (Freddy Alfredo), S272238 #21-23  People v. Curiel, S272238.  (G058604; nonpublished opinion; Orange County Superior Court; 02CF2160.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter and remanded for further proceedings.  This case presents the following issue:  Does a jury’s true finding on a gang-murder special circumstance (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) preclude a defendant from making a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95? 

(3)  Gantner (Anthony) v. PG&E Corporation et al., S273340 (Kruger, J. not participating; O’Rourke, J., assigned justice pro tempore) #22-140  Gantner v. PG&E Corporation, S273340.  (9th Cir. No. 21-15571; 26 F.4th 1085; Northern District of California; D.C. No. 4:20-cv-02584-HSG.)  Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The questions presented are:  “(1) Does California Public Utilities Code section 1759 preempt a plaintiff’s claim of negligence brought against a utility if the alleged negligent acts were not approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), but those acts foreseeably resulted in the utility having to take subsequent action (here, a Public Safety Power Shutoff), pursuant to CPUC guidelines, and that subsequent action caused the plaintiff’s alleged injury? (2) Does PG&E’s Electric Rule Number 14 shield PG&E from liability for an interruption in its services that PG&E determines is necessary for the safety of the public at large, even if the need for that interruption arises from PG&E’s own negligence?