New pages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 22:31, 1 September 2025 Trespass (hist | edit) [19,885 bytes] Sysop (talk | contribs) (Created page with " ==Penal Code 602(k)== Penal Code 602(k): (k) Entering lands, whether unenclosed or enclosed by fence, for the purpose of injuring property or property rights or with the intention of interfering with, obstructing, or injuring a lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession. CALCRIM 2930 The defendant is charged [in Count ] with trespassing [in violation of Penal Code section 602(k)]. To pro...")
- 16:53, 29 August 2025 Sexually Violent Predator (hist | edit) [130 bytes] Sysop (talk | contribs) (Created page with " People v. Cannon (Aug. 18, 2025, S277995)")
- 04:04, 7 July 2025 Necessity (hist | edit) [18,304 bytes] Sysop (talk | contribs) (Created page with " (a) [§ 68] Availability of Defense., 1 Witkin, Cal. Crim. Law 5th Defenses § 68 (2025) The defense of necessity has long been recognized, but the situations rarely appeared in early case law, and the dicta and discussion by writers furnish little by way of a test. Thus, a typical illustration was the taking of food to prevent starvation; but, apart from conditions of famine or other serious emergency, the opportunity to obtain food from relief agencies probably prec...")
- 18:45, 6 July 2025 Vandalism (hist | edit) [1,178 bytes] Sysop (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Vandalism Vandalism is general intent crime. People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889 To commit vandalism a defendant must do an act “maliciously.” (§ 594, subd. (a).) However, as we have stated, a person acts maliciously **651 either when acting with “a wish to vex, annoy, or injure another person” or with the “intent to do a wrongful act.” (§ 7, item 4.) As our Supreme Court has explained, the first type of malice described in section 7, item 4, is kn...")
- 00:10, 9 June 2025 Common terms (hist | edit) [17,561 bytes] Sysop (talk | contribs) (Created page with "ARANDA-BRUTON MOTION (People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518; Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 [88 S.Ct 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476].) When two or more defendants are jointly charged, and one has made an extra judicial statement which inculpates a co-defendant, that co-defendant may move for severance on that basis; if the statement cannot be redacted to remove prejudice to the co-defendant, either the prosecution must agree not to use the statement or the severance s...")