Wednesday October 07, 2020
9:00 am - 2:30 pm
Supreme Court Oral Arguments for October 7, 2020
Counsel will appear remotely and courtroom seating for the press will be strictly limited to achieve appropriate distancing. The public will continue to have access to argument via live-streaming.
(1) In re Gadlin (Gregory) on Habeas Corpus, S254599
This case includes the following issue: Under Proposition 57 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 32), may the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation categorically exclude from early parole consideration all prisoners who have been previously convicted of a sex offense requiring registration under Penal Code section 290?
(2) People v. Gentile (Joseph, Jr.), S256698
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does the amendment to Penal Code section 188 by recently enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 eliminate second degree murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (2) Does Senate Bill No. 1437 apply retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal? (3) Was it prejudicial error to instruct the jury in this case on natural and probable consequences as a theory of murder?
(3) Sass (Deborah) v. Cohen (Theodore), S255262
The court limited review to the following issues: (1) In a complaint that seeks an accounting of specified assets, is the plaintiff required to plead a specific amount of damages to support a default judgment, or is it sufficient for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 580 to identify the assets that are in defendant’s possession and request half of their value? (2) Should the comparison of whether a default judgment exceeds the amount of compensatory damages demanded in the operative pleadings examine the aggregate amount of non-duplicative damages or instead proceed on a claim-by-claim or item-by-item basis?
(4) People v. Moses III (Antonio Chavez), S258143
The court limited review to the following issue: Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing defendant’s conviction for human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)(1)) on the ground that defendant was communicating with an adult police officer posing as a minor rather than an actual minor?