Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. [2]
Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that established the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.To date, it is the most persuasive decision of the most persuasive state supreme court in the United States during the latter half of the 20th century: Dillon has been favorably cited and followed by at least twenty reported out-of ...
Ewing v. Goldstein 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) is a landmark court case that extended California mental health professional's duty to protect identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v.
People of California v. Hernandez, 61 Cal.2d 529 (1964), was a California Supreme Court case ruling that an "honest and reasonable" mistake as to the age of a female is a valid defense to a statutory rape charge. [1] The defendant was charged with violating California Penal Code section 261, subd. 1, statutory rape, a misdemeanor. He pleaded ...
Court: Superior Court of the State of California for and in the County of Santa Clara: Full case name: The People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner : Indictment: January 28, 2015, on counts: rape of an intoxicated person, in violation of California Penal Code § 261(a)(3) rape of an unconscious person, in violation of PC § 261(a)(4)
Marsy's Law also gives alleged victims the right to be represented by counsel of their choosing, rather than relying on the prosecutor, who has a legal obligation to represent the people of his or her jurisdiction, and not the victim. Marsy's Law rights are enforceable and an adverse ruling against a victim in any context involving these rights ...
In September 2017, jury selection began for the case. Questionnaires were given to prospective jurors, and they were informed that the trial could last as long as six weeks. Additionally, they were told the trial involved "extensive internal and external injuries" of the victim. The jury composition was seven women and five men. [27] [26]
On appeal, the California Supreme Court upheld the decision in March 1885 since California law only excluded Indian and African American students from public school. [36] On the court, Tape's attorney, W.F. Gibson, argued that the Tapes family was not a typical Chinese family who did not want to assimilate into American society.