Decisions in Criminal, Juvenile & Employment Matters

People v. Hill, A117787, Defendant's convictions and sentences for offenses related to killing an undercover police officer and wounding another, is affirmed as, the trial court's determination that a witness could testify on direct examination about the out-of-court statements he relied on forming certain of his opinions in concluding that such statements did not come in for their truth, but only to assist the jury in evaluating the witness's opinions, rests on relevant Supreme Court precedent.


People v. Higgins, D055649, concerned a challenge to a defendant's convictions for burglary of an inhabited dwelling, assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to cause great bodily injury, and assault with a firearm.  The court reversed the convictions in concluding that the prosecutor engaged in a pervasive pattern of misconduct that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

In re Jose T., A128020, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's jurisdictional and dispositional order in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602  proceeding declaring wardship and committing the minor defendant to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for aggravated assault.  In vacating the judgment, the court held that the juvenile court automatically, and erroneously, imposed a previously suspended DJJ commitment.  On remand, the juvenile court is directed to evaluate the appropriate placement for the defendant including whether to impose the previously suspended DJJ commitment based upon current factors and circumstances.

Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC, C059133, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment in favor of a defendant in an action for sexual harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, violation of the right to privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In affirming the judgment, the court held that the e-mails sent by plaintiff to her attorney regarding possible legal action against defendants did not constitute "confidential communication between client and lawyer" within the meaning of Evidence Code section 952 because, by using the company's computer to communicate with her lawyer, knowing the communications violated company computer policy and could be discovered by her employer due to company monitoring of e-mail usage, plaintiff did not communicate in confidence by means which, so far as the client is aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted.

Related Links:

• Read the Full Decision in People v. Hill, A117787
• Read the Full Decision in People v. Higgins, D055649
• Read the Full Decision in In re Jose T., A128020
• Read the Full Decision in Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., LLC, C059133