For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
Daily appellate reports
Sign up for Daily Journal emails
    Filter by date
     to 
    Search by Case Name
    Search by Judge
    Search by Case Number
    Search by DJ Citation Number
    Search by Category
    Search by Court
Name Category Published
People v. Munch
Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome evidence is relevant and admissible to advise jurors that self-impeaching behavior is not unusual for sexually abused children. 		Evidence 2DCA/6 Jul. 22, 2020
Delgado v. California Dept. Motor Vehicles
Laboratory's affidavit stating there was no record of officer's qualification to administer alcohol test, was not sufficient to show that officer was not qualified to administer the test. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 Jun. 16, 2020
People v. Tran
Expert's videos were analogous to charts and were used to help others understand surveillance footage; thus, videos were not subject to 'Kelly-Frye' test. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Jun. 11, 2020
Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc.
Witness observations of names and logos were not hearsay because they were relevant to prove disputed link between defendant and pipes and were not offered for truth of their content. 		Evidence CASC May 22, 2020
Lowery v. Kindren Healthcare Operating, Inc.
Trial court properly excluded expert witness because his declaration provided no explanation as to why he opined that defendant's alleged lack of untimely treatment caused decedent's death. 		Evidence 1DCA/4 May 20, 2020
Waller v. FCA US LLC
Plaintiff's expert testimony was not admissible because the testimony failed to establish any basis for his observation. 		Evidence 2DCA/2 May 7, 2020
Mitchell v. U.S.
'Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado' left untouched law governing investigating and interviewing jurors and thus did not give rise to 'extraordinary circumstances' for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 		Evidence 9th May 1, 2020
Grodzitsky v. American Honda Motor Co.
District court properly excluded plaintiff's expert opinion as unreliable under 'Daubert' because expert failed to utilize workable standard supporting plaintiff's design defect theory. 		Evidence 9th Apr. 30, 2020
People v. Robinson
Trial court properly sustained the People's objections because defense counsel's questions were cumulative and more prejudicial than probative. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Apr. 22, 2020
Modification: Wood v. Superior Court (CFG Jamacha LLC)
Trial court did not err by ordering production of email petitioner sent to Department of Fair Employment and Housing because petitioner did not establish basis for attorney-client relationship to invoke privilege. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Apr. 10, 2020
Ford v. City of Los Angeles
Plaintiff's argument that defendant's application for federal funds to improve safety of intersection was not covered by Section 409's privilege was inconsistent with its legislative intent. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Apr. 3, 2020
Wood v. Superior Court (CFG Jamacha LLC)
Trial court did not err by ordering production of email petitioner sent to Department of Fair Employment and Housing because petitioner did not establish basis for attorney-client relationship to invoke privilege. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Mar. 17, 2020
Barranco v. 3D Systems Corp.
District court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of plaintiff's arbitration award as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. 		Evidence 9th Mar. 13, 2020
People v. Quintanilla
Under Evidence Code Section 1390, it is not sufficient that defendant caused declarant's unavailability; defendant must also have intended that result when engaging in wrongdoing that caused unavailability. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Mar. 4, 2020
People v. Veamatahau
The hearsay rule does not bar an expert's testimony regarding his general knowledge and personal observations after expert concluded defendant's seized pills were Xanax. 		Evidence CASC Feb. 28, 2020
People v. Perez
Defendant's failure to object at trial, before 'People v. Sanchez' was decided, did not forfeit his claim that gang expert's testimony related case-specific hearsay. 		Evidence CASC Feb. 28, 2020
People v. Morales
Admission of interrogation video containing non-testifying law enforcement officer's inculpatory statements about the defendant did not violate the confrontation clause. 		Evidence 4DCA/2 Jan. 16, 2020
People v. Venegas
Courts have discretion to refuse to strike firearm enhancements based on the requesting party's criminal record or where there's no good cause to strike. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Jan. 9, 2020
McDermott Ranch v. Connolly Ranch
Trial court carefully evaluated trustworthiness of evidence, including evidence of declarant's stake in outcome of dispute; thus, hearsay statements under Evidence Code Section 1323 were admissible. 		Evidence 3DCA Dec. 19, 2019
Crawford v. City of Bakersfield
Testimony from mother of deceased as to her son's history of mental illness relevant to question of whether police officer acted reasonably in using lethal force to subdue him. 		Evidence 9th Dec. 17, 2019
People v. Royal
A six-year gap between an incident and a recorded recollection is generally too long to allow for the statement's admission under the past recollection recorded hearsay exception. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Dec. 12, 2019
Fish v. Superior Court (San Diego)
Petitioner's disclosures to law enforcement that he was under the care of psychotherapist who had prescribed him medications were legally insufficient to waive his psychotherapist-patient privilege. 		Evidence 4DCA/1 Dec. 3, 2019
People v. Anderson
Evidence that defendant previously took concrete bunny and string lights from neighbor's yard was admissible at his trial for burglary because that evidence properly could create inference probative of criminal intent. 		Evidence 2DCA/8 Nov. 29, 2019
People v. Coneal
Admission of rap lyrics to prove defendant committed a particular crime is substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code Section 352 because rap lyrics should not be taken literally. 		Evidence 1DCA/5 Nov. 8, 2019
Berroteran v. Superior Court
Real party in interest had a similar motive to cross-examine its own witnesses in prior litigation; thus, trial court abused discretion in granting motion to exclude depositions. 		Evidence 2DCA/1 Oct. 31, 2019
P. v. Carkhum-Murphy
Defendant's statement was exculpatory by asserting defendant committed lesser included offense of misdemeanor theft but did not commit serious and violent felony of robbery; thus, prior convictions to impeach defendant properly admitted. 		Evidence 3DCA Oct. 22, 2019
People v. Felix
Defendant's armed robbery conviction was similar to current crime of attempted murder because in both incidents, codefendant, in defendant's presence, did not hesitate to criminally threaten and assault victims with weapon. 		Evidence 3DCA Oct. 18, 2019
U.S. v. Thornhill
Applying Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to Rule 414 evidence, and factors set forth in 'United States v. LeMay,' probative value of defendant's prior conviction was not substantially outweighed by its unfair prejudice. 		Evidence 9th Oct. 16, 2019
Modification: People v. Hall
Petitioner's arrest and probation reports, although hearsay, were sufficiently reliable under the circumstances to support their admissibility in determining whether petitioner was eligible for relief under Proposition 64. 		Evidence 2DCA/6 Oct. 10, 2019
Doe v. Occidental College
Adjudicator reasonably concluded that student was unable to make 'an informed and rational decision to engage in sexual activity' and that appellant, had he been sober, should have known it. 		Evidence 2DCA/7 Sep. 25, 2019
By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.