Court Filings

The Court of Appeal reversed two convictions and affirmed one from defendant Wayne Hansen Hsiung’s convictions arising from “open rescue” animal-rights protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. The court held the trial court erred by barring a mistake-of-law defense based on defendant’s good-faith (though mistaken) reliance on legal advice that a necessity justification made trespass lawful for rescuing or treating suffering animals; that defect required reversal of the conspiracy count and one trespass count and remand for further proceedings. The court rejected challenges to Penal Code section 31 and to section 602(o) and affirmed the remaining conviction.

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case of Robert Lopez, convicted in 2007 of murder and related offenses, for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 (Senate Bill 1437/775). The trial court had denied his resentencing petition after an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground Lopez forfeited his instructional-ambiguity claim by not raising it on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that section 1172.6 does not categorically bar petitions based on jury instruction ambiguity that may have permitted conviction by imputed malice, and ordered the appellate court to consider Lopez’s claims on the merits.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that dismissed multiple burglary, theft, and identity-theft charges after a defendant, Keena Landrine, was placed on mental health diversion. Although Landrine made substantial progress while in custody, the appellate court held the diversion statute requires defendants to substantially comply with diversion conditions before charges may be dismissed. Landrine repeatedly violated diversion requirements—relapsing on drugs, refusing recommended detox/treatment, and committing dozens of new criminal offenses—so the trial court abused its discretion by finding satisfactory performance. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the dismissed charges.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that had authorized involuntary antipsychotic medication for defendant C.F., who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. At the renewal hearing the trial court proceeded without a court reporter because defense counsel failed to request the no-cost reporter available under local rules; the hearing lasted about 13 minutes and the transcript of testimony is therefore missing. The appellate court found defense counsel’s failure to secure a reporter was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial because it eliminated any meaningful appellate review, and because the medication order will expire before a settled statement could be produced, the case is remanded for a new hearing.

A jury convicted Jan Curtis Harzan of communicating with and arranging to meet a minor for sexual purposes after he messaged and agreed to meet an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old. Before trial the court ruled evidence of alleged sexual misconduct by Harzan from the 1970s would be excluded in the prosecution’s case-in-chief but could be admitted if Harzan asserted an entrapment defense. To avoid that prejudicial evidence, Harzan declined the entrapment defense and was convicted. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the court’s conditioning of exclusion violated Harzan’s constitutional right to present a defense, though the evidence supporting guilt was otherwise substantial.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded defendant Jose Gerardo Espiritu’s conviction for sexual offenses because the trial court failed to follow the process required by Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 during jury selection. Defense counsel objected when the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror who identified herself as a nurse. The trial court accepted the prosecutor’s stated reason (that the juror was a nurse) without determining whether that reason was a presumptively invalid ground under section 231.7(e)(10). Because the court did not make the required inquiry into presumptively invalid categories, the appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal reversed the convictions of Pedro Thomas DeLeon Tzul for the murders of Martha and Antonio Garcia and directed a new trial. The trial court had excluded a handwritten note found at the scene—in which the author said he found the victim having sex with her brother and that this filled him with rage—during the People’s case under Evidence Code section 352, effectively forcing Tzul to testify to get the note admitted. The appellate court held the note was highly probative of provocation and should not have been excluded; admission during the People’s case likely would have produced a more favorable result for Tzul.

The California Supreme Court reversed the defendant Omar Richard Deen’s death-row conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial. Deen was convicted of murdering his mother and a police chief, and a capital trial proceeded in competency, guilt, sanity, and penalty phases. The Court found reversible error in the trial court’s handling of a defense challenge for cause to a prospective juror (Juror No. 5). The trial court applied an unduly narrow standard, accepted the juror’s self-assessment without properly weighing the totality of circumstances, and failed to make the findings necessary for meaningful appellate review.