Supreme Court Oral Argument

California Supreme Court Welcomes San Diego Students to Oral Argument (View News Release) | Photos on Flickr

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2023 — 9:00 A.M.  

(1) Camacho (Ciro) v. Superior Court of Merced County (People, Real Party in Interest), S273391  (To be called and continued to the June 27, 2023 session.)

(2) People v. Gray (Dontrae), S269237  

(3) People v. Schuller (Jason Carl), S27237 

View Case Information and Briefs.

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2023 — 9:00 A.M.  

(1)  Camacho (Ciro) v. Superior Court of Merced County (People, Real Party in Interest), S273391  (To be called and continued to the June 27, 2023 session.)

#22-118  Camacho v. Superior Court, S273391.  (F082798; nonpublished opinion; Merced County Superior Court; 146207.)   Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition.  This case presents the following issue:  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?

(2)  People v. Gray (Dontrae), S269237

#21-346  People v. Gray, S269237.  (B302236; 63 Cal.App.5th 947; Los Angeles County Superior Court; MA065662.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of a criminal offense.  This case presents the following issue:  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?

(3)  People v. Schuller (Jason Carl), S272237

#22-13  People v. Schuller, S272237.  (C087191; 72 Cal.App.5th 221; Nevada County Superior Court; F16000111.)  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses.  This case presents the following issues:  (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?