California Criminal Law Wiki - Recent changes [en]

Three Strikes

Sysop — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 04:12:35 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:12, 25 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Three Strikes Law'''		'''Three Strikes Law'''

			==Non-strike being third strike==

			===Armed with a firearm===

			''People v Martinez'' (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 979

Burglary

Sysop — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 01:11:01 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 23 September 2026
Line 59:		Line 59:

	First-degree burglary charge arising from burglary of commercial laundry room that was contiguous to and under same roof as apartments in complex was not inconsistent with policy interests underlying the offense of residential burglary; safety and privacy expectations surrounding an inhabited dwelling house were present in the common area laundry room of complex. ?People v. Woods (App. 4 Dist. 1998) 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 65 Cal.App.4th 345, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied. ?Burglary Key Number 4		First-degree burglary charge arising from burglary of commercial laundry room that was contiguous to and under same roof as apartments in complex was not inconsistent with policy interests underlying the offense of residential burglary; safety and privacy expectations surrounding an inhabited dwelling house were present in the common area laundry room of complex. ?People v. Woods (App. 4 Dist. 1998) 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 917, 65 Cal.App.4th 345, modified on denial of rehearing, review denied. ?Burglary Key Number 4

			===Live person present===

			If victim comes home during the burglary, it's considered "live person present" under PC667.5(c)(21). (''People v. Munguia'' (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 103.)

	==Statute==		==Statute==

American with Disabilities Act

Sysop — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:41:51 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 21 September 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 266 Cal. Rptr. 804 (1st Dist. 1990).		Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 266 Cal. Rptr. 804 (1st Dist. 1990).
	As to the recovery of damages under the Unruh Act for discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Civil Rights § 26.		As to the recovery of damages under the Unruh Act for discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Civil Rights § 26.

			Individuals with disabilities are entitled to the same full and equal access as are other members of the general public to the accommodations, facilities, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation.1
			Observation:
			The statutory protections for persons with disabilities are intended to secure, to disabled persons, the right as the general public to the full and free use of facilities open to the public, but they do not entitle a disabled individual to greater access than the public at large.2
			Every individual with a disability has the right to be accompanied by a guide dog, signal dog, or service dog, especially trained for the purpose, without being required to pay an extra charge or security deposit for the guide dog, signal dog, or service dog; however, the individual may be liable for any damage done to the premises or facilities by the dog.3 Additionally, subject to liability for provable damage, visually impaired or blind persons, deaf or hard of hearing persons, and other individuals with a disability; persons licensed to train guide dogs; and persons authorized to train signal dogs or service dogs may take dogs, for the purpose of training them, on common carriers or other public conveyances or modes of transportation; the dog must be on a leash and properly tagged.4
			Any interference with the exercise of specified rights to be accompanied by a dog is a crime punishable as a misdemeanor.5 The rights so protected by the penal provision include the right of a blind, deaf, or disabled person who is a passenger on a common carrier, or other public conveyance or mode of transportation, to have with him or her a specially trained guide dog, signal dog, or service dog.6 While such persons may be liable for any provable damage done to the premises or facilities by their dog, the exercise of the right to be accompanied by a dog may not be conditioned upon the payment of any extra charge.7 The penal provision also applies to the right of specified persons to be accompanied by such dogs for the purpose of training, provided the dog is on a leash and is properly tagged.8
			Westlaw. © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
			Footnotes
			1
			Civ. Code, § 54.1, subd. (a).
			For full discussion of this state's protections against discrimination in public accommodations related to disabilities, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Civil Rights §§ 78 to 89; as to protections afforded persons with disabilities by federal law, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Civil Rights §§ 90 to 95.
			2
			Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 94, 237 Ed. Law Rep. 814 (1st Dist. 2008), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Nov. 25, 2008).
			3
			Civ. Code, § 54.2, subd. (a).
			4
			Civ. Code, § 54.1, subd. (c).
			5
			Pen. Code, § 365.5, subd. (c).
			6
			Pen. Code, § 365.5, subd. (a).
			7
			Pen. Code, § 365.5, subd. (h).
			8
			Pen. Code, § 365.5, subd. (i).

American with Disabilities Act

Sysop — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:41:19 GMT

Created page with "The building department of every city, county, or city and county is required to enforce the laws as to access by persons with disabilities to buildings within its jurisdiction.1 Any unauthorized deviation from the regulations or building standards governing access by persons with disabilities to publicly funded structures must be rectified by full compliance within 90 days after discovery of the deviation.2 Any person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a viola..."

New page

The building department of every city, county, or city and county is required to enforce the laws as to access by persons with disabilities to buildings within its jurisdiction.1 Any unauthorized deviation from the regulations or building standards governing access by persons with disabilities to publicly funded structures must be rectified by full compliance within 90 days after discovery of the deviation.2
Any person who is aggrieved or potentially aggrieved by a violation of any of the statutes governing access to structures by persons with disabilities may bring an action to enjoin the violation.3 The prevailing party in the action is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.4 Furthermore, the district attorney, the city attorney, the county counsel if the district attorney does not bring an action, the Department of Rehabilitation acting through the attorney general, or the attorney general may bring an action to enjoin any violation of the requirements as to access by persons with disabilities.5
Observation:
California's Health and Safety Code does not require the plaintiff with disabilities to establish that they were individually denied access to the public accommodation; rather, it allows the plaintiff to enforce compliance, by injunctive relief.6 However, the statutes governing building standards for access by persons with disabilities do not support a private right of action for damages.7 To establish damages, the individual must take the additional step of establishing that the individual was denied equal access on a particular occasion under the Unruh Act.8
Westlaw. © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Footnotes
1
Health & Saf. Code, § 19958.
2
Gov. Code, § 4452.
3
Health & Saf. Code, § 19953.
As to injunctions, generally, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Injunctions §§ 1 to 141.
4
Health & Saf. Code, § 19953.
5
Health & Saf. Code, §§ 19954, 19958.5; Gov. Code, § 4458.
6
Moore v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1176 (E.D. Cal. 2015).
7
Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 266 Cal. Rptr. 804 (1st Dist. 1990).
8
Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 266 Cal. Rptr. 804 (1st Dist. 1990).
As to the recovery of damages under the Unruh Act for discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations, see Cal. Jur. 3d, Civil Rights § 26.

Threats

Sysop — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:08:00 GMT

Annoying phone calls

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 19 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 396:		Line 396:
	(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.		(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls or contact, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.

	PC653m(b) required repeated telephone conduct.		PC653m(b) required repeated telephone conduct.

			''People v. Astalis'' (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1


			===Penal Code 148.3 swatting reporting false emergency===


			===Penal Code 653x using 911 to annoy or harass person===

			(b) An intent to annoy or harass is established by proof of repeated calls or communications over a period of time, however short, that are unreasonable under the circumstances.

			===Penal Code 653y using 911 for non-emergencies===

			This section does not apply to uses of the 911 emergency system by a person with an intellectual disability or other mental disability that makes it difficult or impossible for the person to understand the potential consequences of their actions.

	==Stalking==		==Stalking==

Probation conditions

Sysop — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 01:54:24 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 19 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Search conditions or 4th Waivers==		==Search conditions or 4th Waivers==
	''People v. Bryant'' (Apr. 17, 2017, No. B271300), available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B271300M.PDF]		''People v. Bryant'' (Apr. 17, 2017, No. B271300), available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B271300M.PDF]


			==Social media sites==

			''People v. Prowell'' (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1094.


			==Communication devices==

			''People v. Prowell'' (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 1094.

Bail

Sysop — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 07:13:37 GMT

Humphrey and Kowalczyk

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:13, 16 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	"The California Supreme Court has recognized that release on bail and OR release are separate and distinct procedures." (''Williams v. County of San Joaquin'' (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1326, citing ''Van Atta v. Scott'' (1980) 27 Cal.3d 424, 452 ["Release on own recognizance and release on bail are alternative and complementary systems"]]



			==Humphrey and Kowalczyk==

			"The totality of the circumstances also includes a defendant's financial situation and resources available to satisfy a monetary bail order. '''This does not mean that bail may only be set in an amount that is easily affordable or convenient to the defendant, or that the court must accept unsupported, conclusory assertions of indigency or an inability to pay.''' Rather, consistent with constitutional framework regarding bail determinations and our prior precedent, bail must generally be set in an amount that is reasonably attainable, in order to effectuate the defendant's constitutional right to pretrial release on bail." (''In re Kowalczyk'' (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 607-608.)

			"When it comes to considering monetary bail, the defendant must do more than present conclusory assertions of indigency or an inability to pay." (''In re Kowalczyk'' (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 625.)

			Kowalczyk said "a defendant cannot rely on conclusory assertions of excessiveness to prevail in every case," and quotes with approval Ex Parte Duncan, "Consistent with the totality of the circumstances approach we adopt here, we reasoned with respect to excessiveness: 'Undoubtedly the extent of the pecuniary ability of a prisoner to furnish bail is a circumstance among other circumstances to be considered in fixing the amount in which it is to be required, but it is not in itself controlling. [Otherwise], ... '''the fact that the prisoner had no means of his own, and no friends who were able or willing to become sureties for him, even in the smallest sum, would constitute a case of excessive bail, and would entitle him to go at large upon his own recognizance.'''' (''In re Kowalczyk'' (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 627.)

			"'''This does not mean that, once a court determines that setting monetary bail is necessary to vindicate state interests, it must set bail in an amount that is easily affordable or convenient to the defendant, or that a court should accept a defendant's conclusory allegations regarding indigency, excessiveness, or an inability to pay. That is, if a defendant alleges the inability to pay a certain bail amount, the burden is on the defendant to support that allegation with reliable evidence.'''" (In re Kowalczyk (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 630.)

			"When defendants are accused of felonies involving domestic abuse, child neglect, or drug trafficking, detention may be authorized under section 12 if the charges involve violence or threatened violence. In some cases, detention may be authorized even when the defendant was not the direct perpetrator." (''In re Kowalczyk'' (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 634 (conc. opn. of Groban, J.)

			"The issues in this case pertain to pretrial bail." (''In re Kowalczyk'' (2026) 19 Cal.5th 593, 610, fn. 4.)

	==Bail==		==Bail==

			"The California Supreme Court has recognized that release on bail and OR release are separate and distinct procedures." (''Williams v. County of San Joaquin'' (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1326, citing ''Van Atta v. Scott'' (1980) 27 Cal.3d 424, 452 ["Release on own recognizance and release on bail are alternative and complementary systems"]]


	==Own Recognizance (OR) Release==		==Own Recognizance (OR) Release==

Pleadings

Sysop — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:24:41 GMT

Accusatory Pleadings

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:24, 14 September 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 74:		Line 74:

	"While the wording of accusatory pleadings has been liberalized, prosecutors may still get themselves in trouble by pleading charges in the disjunctive (“or”), instead of in the conjunctive (“and”). For example, the robbery statute prohibits taking of property by “force or fear.” The complaint and information should allege “force and fear” to avoid any uncertainty." (§ 11:5. Form of allegations—Use of statutory language, California Criminal Procedure § 11:5)		"While the wording of accusatory pleadings has been liberalized, prosecutors may still get themselves in trouble by pleading charges in the disjunctive (“or”), instead of in the conjunctive (“and”). For example, the robbery statute prohibits taking of property by “force or fear.” The complaint and information should allege “force and fear” to avoid any uncertainty." (§ 11:5. Form of allegations—Use of statutory language, California Criminal Procedure § 11:5)

			When a statute lists several acts in the disjunctive, any one of which constitutes an offense, the complaint, in alleging more than one act, should do so in the conjunctive to avoid uncertainty. However, the allegations do not require the prosecutor to prove that the defendant committed the crime in more than one way.

			In re Bushman, 1 Cal. 3d 767, 83 Cal. Rptr. 375, 463 P.2d 727 (1970) (disapproved of on other grounds by, People v. Lent, 15 Cal. 3d 481, 124 Cal. Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 (1975)); People v. Lopez, 129 Cal. App. 4th 1508, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 586 (6th Dist. 2005).

			"When a statute such as Penal Code section 415 lists several acts in the disjunctive, any one of which constitutes an offense, the complaint, in alleging more than one of such acts, should do so in the conjunctive to avoid uncertainty. (People v. Ah Woo (1865) 28 Cal. 205, 212; People v. O'Brien (1900) 130 Cal. 1, 3—4, 62 P. 297.) Merely because the complaint is phrased in the conjunctive, however, does not prevent a trier of fact from convicting a defendant if the evidence proves only one of the alleged acts. (People v. McClennegen (1925) 195 Cal. 445, 452, 234 P. 91.) The jury could have found petitioner guilty of ‘tumultuous conduct’ if the evidence proved that his conduct was maliciously and wilfully violent, endangering public safety and order. They might also have found him guilty of ‘offensive conduct’ if his malicious and wilful actions incited others to violence, although his own conduct was not in itself violent." (In re Bushman (1970) 1 Cal.3d 767, 775 [83 Cal.Rptr. 375, 380, 463 P.2d 727, 732] disapproved of by People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 [124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545].)

			When a crime can be committed in more than one way, it is standard practice *1533 to allege in the conjunctive that it was committed every way. Such allegations do not require the prosecutor to prove that the defendant committed the crime in more than one way. People v. Lopez (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1532–1533 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 586, 605]

			If a statute contains several provisions the violation of any of which is an offense, the statement of the offense should clearly indicate which provision was allegedly violated. If several separate and distinct offenses are enumerated in a statute under a generic designation, it is not sufficient to charge the defendant under the generic designation without further charging the specific offense or offenses.

			People v. Plath, 166 Cal. 227, 135 P. 954 (1913); In re Rudolfo A., 110 Cal. App. 3d 845, 168 Cal. Rptr. 338 (2d Dist. 1980).

	==Complaint vs information and indictment==		==Complaint vs information and indictment==
Line 112:		Line 124:
	NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11590. Failure to do so is a crime pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11594.		NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11590. Failure to do so is a crime pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11594.

	A charge made using the statutory language is sufficient, even though it contains conclusions of law.2 Lorenson v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 35 Cal. 2d 49, 61, 216 P.2d 859 (1950).		A charge made using the statutory language is sufficient, even though it contains conclusions of law.2 Lorenson v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 35 Cal. 2d 49, 61, 216 P.2d 859 (1950).

	When describing the type of controlled substance, it is best to state the particular substance at issue.4		When describing the type of controlled substance, it is best to state the particular substance at issue.4



	Courts have found that a defendant is denied due process when the accusatory pleading simply charges him or her with being under the influence of a controlled substance, but does not designate or describe the substance		Courts have found that a defendant is denied due process when the accusatory pleading simply charges him or her with being under the influence of a controlled substance, but does not designate or describe the substance

Double jeopardy

Sysop — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:06:35 GMT

Multiple offenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 14 September 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 651 ["We therefore conclude section 954 does not authorize multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense."]		People v. Vidana (2016) 1 Cal.5th 632, 651 ["We therefore conclude section 954 does not authorize multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense."]

			PC245(a)(1) and PC245(a)(4) - ''People v. Aguayo'' (2022) 13 Cal.5th 974.

			''People v. Cota'' (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 720

	==Duplicative filings==		==Duplicative filings==

Pleadings

Sysop — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 03:52:12 GMT

Charging Language

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 14 September 2026
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 111:		Line 111:

	NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11590. Failure to do so is a crime pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11594.		NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to register pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11590. Failure to do so is a crime pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 11594.

			A charge made using the statutory language is sufficient, even though it contains conclusions of law.2 Lorenson v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 35 Cal. 2d 49, 61, 216 P.2d 859 (1950).

	When describing the type of controlled substance, it is best to state the particular substance at issue.4		When describing the type of controlled substance, it is best to state the particular substance at issue.4



	Courts have found that a defendant is denied due process when the accusatory pleading simply charges him or her with being under the influence of a controlled substance, but does not designate or describe the substance		Courts have found that a defendant is denied due process when the accusatory pleading simply charges him or her with being under the influence of a controlled substance, but does not designate or describe the substance

			Sallas v. Municipal Court, 86 Cal. App. 3d 737, 743, 150 Cal. Rptr. 543 (1st Dist. 1978)

	But see ''Ross v. Municipal Court'' (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 575 [overrruling demurrer for not specifying specific controlled substance in complaint for HSC11550].		But see ''Ross v. Municipal Court'' (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 575 [overrruling demurrer for not specifying specific controlled substance in complaint for HSC11550].
Line 202:		Line 208:

	People v. Fontenot (2019) 8 Cal.5th 57, 65 [251 Cal.Rptr.3d 341, 347–348, 447 P.3d 252, 258]		People v. Fontenot (2019) 8 Cal.5th 57, 65 [251 Cal.Rptr.3d 341, 347–348, 447 P.3d 252, 258]

			Judge's duty on lesser included offense.

			People v. Toro, 47 Cal. 3d 966, 975, 254 Cal. Rptr. 811, 766 P.2d 577 (1989) (disapproved of by, People v. Guiuan, 18 Cal. 4th 558, 76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 239, 957 P.2d 928 (1998)).

			People v. Eilers, 231 Cal. App. 3d 288, 295, 282 Cal. Rptr. 252 (4th Dist. 1991) (court must instruct on lesser included offense despite defense objection because jury entitled to consider full range of possible verdicts).

	==Amendments==		==Amendments==