In People v. Warwick, No. G041970, the Fourth District faced a challenge to a conviction for child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on her newborn baby. The court rejected the defendant's contention that she did not "personally inflict" the injuries as required by section 12022.7(d), because "personally inflicts" does not preclude the failure to act where action is required. And in this case, even if defendant's argument were accepted that a an "affirmative action" is required, giving birth to her son in her bedroom and concealing his birth, were affirmative actions by the defendant that nearly caused the baby's death.
In Mike v. Franchise Tax Bd., No. D054439, the Fourth District addressed the issue of whether the Franschise Tax Board may collect income tax from an American Indian for receiving more than $385,000 as her distribution from her tribe's gaming operations on their reservation while living on another tribe's reservation. In affirming the trial court's decision in favor of the tax board, the court held that, the State of California may impose income tax on income received by an enrolled member of a tribe derived from her own land but residing on a reservation of a different tribe.
In In re Lucas, No. C062809, the Third District faced a defendant's challenge to the district attorney's petition to commit him as a sexually violent predator claiming that he was not in lawful custody at the time of the petition because the section 6601.3 hold was placed on him without a showing of good cause. Although the court concluded that the 45-day hold placed on defendant was not justified, it ultimately denied his request for habeas relief in finding that the board imposed the 45-day hold as a result of a good faith mistake of law based on regulation 2600.1(d), and defendant has not shown that the board did not rely on the regulation.
In People v. Memory, No. C054422, the Third District faced a challenge to defendants' convictions for murder and related crimes arising from a fight in a parking lot outside a bar between two groups of men. In reversing the convictions, the court held that it was an error to admit evidence that the defendants were part of a motorcycle gang as there was no foundation that the club was a gang or a criminal enterprise, and was used as inadmissible character evidence.