Law Offices of Acer Chiang
We provide our clients with the best criminal defense, personal injury, and civil litigation representation in Los Angeles and surrounding areas.
Our team of lawyers have over 30 years of experience in the legal field.
Law Offices of Acer Chiang
Here is a checklist of things you can do to help your claim:
(1) Keep an updated inventory of all of your damaged items
(2) Record damage to all property (both pictures and videos)
(3) Call us to get an inspection done immediately!
(4) We will file you’re claim immediately and navigate the process until the end. We don’t get paid until you get paid!
Designed by Sam Morgan
Were you affected by the fires from the foothills in the San Gabriel Valley and Pasadena area? My partner Varand Vartanian and I are experts in navigating homeowner property damage insurance claims involving actual fire or smoke, soot and ash. We apply our knowledge and expertise to hold insurance companies accountable for your claim. Do not let your insurer deny or mishandle your claim for policy benefits you are entitled to!
For a free consultation please call us today @ (626)737-8648
Or email us at
State Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, introduced SB 731, which would create a process for the state to decertify law enforcement officers convicted of certain crimes or terminated for misconduct.
Currently, California is one of five states without the authority to take away an officer’s badge for crimes and serious misconduct.
As protesters nationwide demand police reform, California lawmakers have introduced bills to strip problem police officers of their badges and better equip police agencies from hiring officers with…
“The bill would enact a five-year period of limited immunity for certain defendants in coronavirus-related personal injury and medical malpractice suits, and such cases would fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts. The bill also contains a two-pronged requirement that plaintiffs must establish that a business was grossly negligent or engaged in willful misconduct and that it failed to make "reasonable efforts" to comply with applicable public health guidelines.
In addition, all such cases would be subject to a "clear-and-convincing" evidentiary standard and limitations on noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.”
Republicans' recently floated bill in the Senate to shield businesses and health care providers from coronavirus-related injury suits has raised the eyebrows of both plaintiffs and defense attorneys, with some saying it was the most sweeping and expansive attempt at tort reform they'd ever seen.
The claiming party must show that the at-fault driver failed to operate their vehicle appropriately to prove negligence. The standard of care that a driver must perform while operating a vehicle is the “reasonable person” standard. Every driver must have a reasonable amount of caution when driving a vehicle.
The elements to determine negligence are as follows:
The driver has the duty to operate the vehicle safely.
The driver breached such duty.
The actions of the driver caused the accident.
The accident directly caused losses and damages.
The common examples of negligence are the following:
● Texting and other forms of distracted driving
● Driving while tired or fatigued
● Driving aggressively
California is no stranger to car accidents. Just last year, there were 3,540 vehicle-motor deaths recorded. The majority of these deaths involved passenger cars. The high number of car accident cases also resulted in a lot of compensation claims.
Could this be the dawn of a new era? Or just Lacey's political maneuver?
"Prosecutors in Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey’s office allege Shaw falsified 43 field interview cards, Coblentz falsified seven cards and Martinez falsified two cards. They allege the officers wrote on cards that people admitted to being gang members, when footage from the officers’ body cameras showed no such admissions or showed the people had explicitly denied gang affiliation.
The alleged victims were identified only by their first names. Prosecutors also allege the officers made up more than a dozen “fictional” gang members."
Three LAPD officers were charged with falsifying records to claim people they stopped were gang members or associates.
Apparently some future lawyers are also hackers. 😂
"Some applicants weren't able to log in to the second module of their exam for 30 minutes, testing software provider ExamSoft said in a statement. In a separate statement later on Tuesday, the company attributed the crash to a "sophisticated attack specifically aimed at the login process," which it said it "was able to successfully thwart" with no data compromised. Impacted applicants eventually got in, and were given extra time to finish the exam, said Michigan Supreme Court spokesman John Nevin."
Michigan on Tuesday became the first U.S. state to conduct an online bar exam - and the software crashed. Some applicants weren't able to log in to the second module of their exam for 30 minutes, testing software provider ExamSoft said in a statement. In a separate statement later on Tuesday, the co...
Law Offices of Acer Chiang
Emergency Zero bail for most misdemeanors and non violent felonies remains in effect. Order signed 7-20-20.
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Friday approved a temporary zero emergency bail schedule for most misdemeanors and lower-level felonies.
Check out our new website.
Law Offices of Acer Chiang: Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Business Litigation, and Immigration.
"Fighting for your rights, always on your side."
Fighting for your rights, always on your side. We have a combined twenty years experience fighting for out clients. Personal or business disputes? No Problem, get in touch and we’ll fight for the best results. Get In Touch What People Are Saying Our Attorneys Acer Chiang Acer Chiang has b...
Hours of wait for a restraining order. TRO granted till hearing date in three weeks. The last time I filed a petition in early April, I got my client’s entire attorney’s fee back!
If you or someone you know is being harassed or has been assaulted, and law enforcement has not made arrests or filed charges, please contact me!
Fighting for your rights, always on your side.
Law Offices of Acer Chiang
Very good video on the differences between Covid-19 and the seasonal/common flu. Covid-19 is completely foreign to the human immune system, and although not as transmittable as measles or Zika, but still twice as easily transmitted than the common flu. It has a much longer incubation period than the flu, and also a much higher hospitalization and kill rate. So without immunity and vaccination 💉, which we have neither, every person that is infected will become sick and transmit the disease. The only defense we have against it is social, by taking ourselves out of the chain.
Please continue to social distance and sanitize for the health and safety of you and your loved ones.
Coronavirus is not the flu. It's worse.
Law Offices of Acer Chiang
Photos from Law Offices of Acer Chiang's post
Law Offices of Acer Chiang
National Association for Public Defense
"Criminal case dockets have become so bloated in the last fifty years as Americans have disastrously over-relied on the criminal legal system to solve all our problems. Pressure-packed, conveyor-belt plea bargaining has become the only release valve. The grossly divergent sentences offered to defendants who plead guilty versus those who don’t — often called the “trial penalty” — proves just how divorced from public safety, justice, or even rationality this system is."
“Criminalization of homelessness is part of a larger pattern in this country of turning to law enforcement to solve societal problems, such as substance abuse, mental illness and poverty - a pattern that has made the U.S. a leader in incarceration while only exacerbating those problems."
Gary Mandinach, Attorney at Law, California Appellate Project, Los Angeles, California
1. People v. Jeremiah C.(2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 22, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9898, the First Appellate District, Division 3 held that a police officer who detained the minor as a suspect in a robbery did not have a valid basis to conduct a pat-down safety search where there was no information the robbery involved a weapon, the minor was cooperative, and nothing about the minor’s appearance, behavior, or actions suggested the minor was carrying a weapon. Where the record is lacking in specific and articulable facts indicating that the minor may be armed and dangerous, a pat-search for weapons is an impermissible intrusion. (See Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1.) A per se type of rule that automatically permits a patsearch for every lawfully detained robbery suspect would be at odds with established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
2. Ruiz-Martinez v. Superior Court (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 22, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9903, the Sixth Appellate District held that the prosecutor clearly violated section 939.5 by excusing three grand jurors. The prosecutor’s actions affected the composition of the grand jury, but an improper juror excusal is not inherently prejudicial. A grand juror’s potential bias in favor of a defendant does not demonstrate that the improper dismissal reasonably might have had an adverse effect on the impartiality or independence of the grand jury.
3. People v. Carkhum-Murphy (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 22, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9916, the Third Appellate District held that Evidence Code sections 788 and1202, taken together, provide that evidence of a prior felony conviction is admissible to impeach a criminal defendant’s hearsay declaration. (See People v. Little (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1364.) The fact that the defendant’s hearsay statement was admitted by the prosecution has no bearing on the admissibility of impeachment evidence. Additionally, the trial court did not err in dismissing a juror for cause when the juror brought outside facts into the jury room and was not credible in explaining this to the trial court.
4. People v. R.C. (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 22, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9922, the Second Appellate District, Division 6 held that the minor had liability as an aider and abettor of an assault where he accompanied the assailant into a store with the intent to commit a robbery, with knowledge that the assailant had a B.B. gun, and the assailant used the gun to strike the store clerk. The minor’s alleged inability to anticipate the consequences of criminal conduct does not factor into a determination of his aider and abettor liability.
5. People v. Sanchez (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 23, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9975, the First Appellate District, Division 3 held that when an action is dismissed by a magistrate on constitutional grounds, here vindictive prosecution, the dismissal cannot be reinstated under section 871.5. In other words, review of a magistrate’s dismissal decision is strictly limited to orders based upon the statutes specified in section 871.5. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying a motion to reinstate a complaint against the defendant where the magistrate dismissed the complaint on constitutional grounds not listed in section 871.5. The prosecution had refilled a count that a prior jury could not come to a verdict; and when it was refilled, the defense moved to dismiss it for prosecutorial vindictiveness.
6. People v. Kingston (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 23, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9971, the Second Appellate District, Division 1 held that the trial court did not violate Duenas, and her due process rights by imposing fines without ascertaining her ability to pay, since the fines neither interfered with the defendant’s access to the courts nor resulted in her incarceration. When the record reveals that the defendant’s violation of the terms of probation was the result of irresponsible or willful behavior, termination of probation and imposition of a prison sentence is not an abuse of discretion. The imposition of the assessments and fees did not interfered with her right to present a defense at trial, or to challenge the trial court’s rulings on appeal, since they were imposed after she pleaded no contest and their imposition did not result in her incarceration.
7. People v. Allen (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 24, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 9983, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 found that the defendant pleaded guilty to committing felony welfare fraud in 1993, 1997, and 2000 (and to committing felony perjury in 2000). At sentencing in each case, the trial court ordered Allen to pay direct victim restitution and various fines and fees. In 2018, Allen filed petitions under sections 1203.4 and 1203.42 seeking discretionary “expungement” of her convictions on the basis she had been rehabilitated. She also sought to stay, dismiss, or delete her court-ordered fines and fees because she asserted she was unable to pay them. The prosecution opposed the expungement requests because Allen still owed about $9,000 in direct victim restitution; the prosecution did not oppose the request for relief from the fines and fees. The trial court denied Allen’s petitions based on her outstanding victim restitution obligations, but did not directly address her request for relief from the fines and fees. Therefore, the trial court did not violate a defendant’s due process and equal protection rights by denying her discretionary expungement petitions on the basis of outstanding victim restitution obligations that she maintains she was unable to pay.
8. People v. Lucero (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 29, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 100003, the Sixth Appellate District held that at issue are declarations containing false information collected by defendant, Dolores Maria Lucero, to be used in court to support of her request for injunctive relief to halt a petition drive to recall her from her position as a city council member for the City of Shasta Lake. The defendant also submitted the declarations to law enforcement, and an investigation against a person involved in the recall effort was initiated as a result. Defendant duped several people who had signed the recall petition into signing these declarations. A declaration containing false testimony falls within the ambit of a book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing as used in section 134. The statute does not differentiate between real and testimonial evidence. A document does not need to be a forgery or altered to support a prosecution under section 134; the elements of section 134 and perjury by declaration under section 118, subdivision (a) do not correspond. Therefore, section 134 was not precluded by section 118, the perjury statute. Therefore, section 134 was not precluded by section 118, the perjury statute. There is also a valuable discussion of the rule in In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651 pertaining the application of a specific v. general statute.
9. People v. Khan (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on October 30, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10059, the Sixth Appellate District held that section 1001.36, pertaining to pretrial diversion for mental health treatment, does not apply retroactively to the defendant who was found guilty and is currently serving his sentence. Police officers had probable cause to believe that a home had been the victim of arson, and that the defendant was implicated, where the homeowner had been the target of harassment, and the homeowner’s place of employment had been subjected to vandalism, shortly after the homeowner terminated the defendant.
10. People v. Martell (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 4, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10255, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2 held that Prop 47 applies to Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and as a result the vehicle must be worth more than $950 to sustain a felony conviction on the taking theory. (See People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175.) If the people wish to prosecute a permanent taking offense as a felony, they have to prove the vehicle taken was worth more than $950; the same requirement doesn’t apply to prosecuting post-theft driving offenses, but the prosecution needs to show a substantial break between the taking and the driving of the vehicle to establish a post-theft driving offense. The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to find the car the defendant took from his girlfriend, was worth more than $950 to convict him of a felony for permanently taking the vehicle where there was reason to doubt whether the jury based its verdict on a taking theory as opposed to a post-theft driving theory.
11. People v. Hampton (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 5, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10292, the Third Appellate District held that no authority vests in the trial court with jurisdiction to vacate the dismissal of a criminal case upon the stipulation of the parties seeking to adopt a plea agreement. The court loses subject matter jurisdiction upon dismissing a criminal case in its entirety.
12. People v. Patton (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 7, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10334, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 held that the defendant did not need a certificate of probable cause to challenge a probation condition pertaining to electronic device search conditions, on appeal where the condition was imposed after he entered into a plea agreement and the boilerplate waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement referred only to the terms of the sentence that were included in the agreement itself. The probationer whose underlying crime involved stealing cellphones may constitutionally be subjected to some electronics search condition. Given the nature of the defendant’s violation, there was a relationship between theft of the electronic devices and the imposition of an electronic device search condition. (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481.)
13. People v. Aguilar (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 8, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10347, the Second Appellate District, Division 8 held that pursuant to section 289, subdivision (a)(1)(C), force includes circumstances where the victim did not want to engage in a sexual act and did not positively cooperate with it. Substantial evidence supports the defendant’s conviction for forcible sexual penetration where defendant persisted despite the victim’s repeated protests, lack of cooperation, and efforts to push the defendant away. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that there was no evidence of force beyond that inherent in the penetration. The court rejected the premise in People v. Schulz (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 999, and People v. Senior (`992) 3 Cal.App.4th 765.
14. People v. Ramirez (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 8, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10349, the Second Appellate District, Division 2 held that under section 1170.95, if there is a prior finding that the petitioner was not a major participant in the felony, the trial court is required to vacate the conviction. The use of the word shall in section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(2) as imposing a mandatory duty on the court to vacate defendant’s sentence and resentence him whenever there is a prior judicial finding that the defendant was not a major participant in the underlying felony and did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
15. People v. Coneal (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 8, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10369, the First Appellate District, Division 5 held that the admission of rap lyrics to prove the defendant committed a particular crime, is substantially more prejudicial than probative, under Evidence Code section 352, because rap lyrics should not be taken literally. In other words, the admission of rap videos featuring a defendant and/or members of his gang and violent, inflammatory lyrics, was error where the videos had minimal probative value, either because they were cumulative of other, less prejudicial evidence, or because their probative value depended on construing the lyrics as literal statements of fact or intent without a persuasive basis to do so. However, the error was harmless given the substantial other evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
16. Aslam v. Superior Court (San Francisco) (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 12, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10401 the First Appellate District, Division 4 held that after the defendant’s conviction for offering a false document in violation of section 115 was vacated, he could be prosecuted for violating a more specific statute, Vehicle Code section 20, without violating double jeopardy protections or the statutory bar against successive prosecutions. The prosecution for a violation of knowingly making false statements in a document filed with the DMV after the defendant was acquitted of perjury, does not offend principles of double jeopardy because they are separate offenses, and the prosecution is permitted to charge the more specific violation of Vehicle Code section 20.
17. People v. Schmidt (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 12, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10411, the Third Appellate District held that recording a deed acquired though fraud does not render the deed “false” or “forged” within the meaning of section 115. There is no authority for the idea that fraud in the inducement renders an instrument false within the meaning of section 115. A fraudulently induced deed, though voidable, is nevertheless genuine in the sense that it conveys title and can be relied upon and enforced by a bona fide purchaser.
18. In re Cobbs (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 12, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10407 the Third District held that the procedures set forth in section 1170.95, provide the sole means by which a person may obtain relief for a conviction that becomes final before the effective date of SB 1437. Petitioner’s first degree murder conviction under either a felony murder or natural and probable consequences theory must be vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing in light of SB 1437. The first degree murder conviction is clearly invalid under People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 and In re Martinez (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1216. SB 1437 changes the law underlying both theories of guilt and provides the procedure for those who seek retroactive application; section 1170.95.
19. People v. Chuccuck (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 13, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10443, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, held that a vehicle is defined by its potential for being driven on a highway; thus the defendant who drove a piece of farm equipment, capable of travel on a highway, even if not intended for it, is still in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851. A vehicle for purposes of Vehicle Code section 670 includes motorized equipment that has the potential physical capability to move along a highway, whether lawfully or unlawfully, if a person chose to do so; the Legislature did not intend to exclude devices used for an enterprise-specific purpose, devices capable of only low-speed travel, or devices which are designed primarily for use off public highways from the definition of vehicle. The unauthorized use of the vehicle risks damage to the vehicle and impairment of its lawful owner’s right to possession irrespective of the length of time or location in which it is operated.
20. Evans v. Shiomoto (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 14, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10494, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 held that a traffic stop on an unpaved dirt road is lawful if the officer is conducting the stop based on his reasonable suspicion the driver is in violation of the vehicle code, here Vehicle Code section 2441, driving with his off-road-only lights illuminated while on a “highway.” An officer lawfully detained a motorist who was driving on a publicly maintained road open only to highway-legal vehicles with his off-road lights illuminated since the Vehicle Code requires off-road lights to be turned off and covered any time a vehicle is operated or driven upon a highway; a road does not have to be paved or have speed limit signs or other road markings to qualify as a highway. Where an officer conducts a chemical breath test and records the results on a standard DS-367 form, attesting therein that the test was administered pursuant to the requirements of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, the form creates a rebuttable presumption the test results are valid, reliable, and admissible. The defendant’s breath test showed a .08.
21. Gardner v. Appellate Division Superior Court San Bernardino (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 14, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10490, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2 held that the Superior Court is not authorized to appoint the Public Defender’s office to represent misdemeanor appellees. (See Gardner v. Superior Court (2019) 6 Cal.5th 998.) Trial level representation does not continue on appeal except at the Public Defender’s discretion. The trial court, whether sitting as the criminal division or as the appellate division, has no authority to compel the Public Defender to represent a misdemeanor defendant in the People’s appeal from a preconviction ruling, such as a motion to suppress, or a dismissal.
22. People v. Tran (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 15, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10538, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 held that exigent circumstances supported seizure of the defendant’s vehicle dash cam camera when the facts suggested it contained evidence of reckless driving. The warrantless seizure of a motorist’s dashboard camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment where there was evidence the motorist may have been driving recklessly and caused a potentially fatal collision, the officer had reason to believe the camera might contain evidence, and the motorist had removed the camera and placed it in a bag; while there was no evidence the motorist was attempting to destroy the camera or the footage it might contain, the circumstances were sufficient to cause a reasonable officer to believe that immediate seizure of the camera was necessary to preserve potential evidence on it. (See United States v. Place (1983) 462 U.S. 696.)
23. People v. Gangl (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 18, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10577, the Third Appellate District held that Prop 36 permits the trial court discretion to allow multiple serious and violet felonies to be sentenced concurrently if the felonies arise from the same set of operative facts. Those serious or violent felonies must then be sentenced consecutively to the sentences for nonserious and nonviolent convictions. (See People v. Torres (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 185, 197; see also People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 652-653.) There were to different amendments, even though they seem similar, one was to the statutory version, section 667, subdivision (c)(7), and the other to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(7). The matter was remanded for resentencing.
24. Daws v. Superior Court (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 18, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10588, the First Appellate District, Division 4 held that the trial court’s written notice requirement for a defendant to withdraw his waiver of his right to a speedy trial, fulfills the requirement of section 1382. Trial courts have inherent authority to determine by local rule or as a matter of courtroom practice what proper notice under section 1382 means, so long as the required notice is consonant with the defendant’s right to a speedy trial under Article I of the California Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; the two day written notice meets that standard.
25. People v. Yanez (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 19, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10607, the First Appellate District, Division 2 held that pre-trial and post-conviction detainees are similarly situated classes of people. Applying conduct credits to reduce the prison sentences for one, but not the other violates the Equal Protection clause. The trial court had refused to grant him conduct credits for the time he spent in an electronic monitoring program on home detention prior to his sentencing. Given the modifications to section 4019 which made credits available to persons who are placed on home monitoring after the initial sentence (§ 4019, subd. (a)(7), denying him credits for the time he spent on electronic monitoring before he was sentenced, violates equal protection.
26. Bracamontes v. Superior Court (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 19, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10611, the Fourth Appellate District, Division 1 held that under section 1054.9, a defendant sentenced to death who is prosecuting post-conviction habeas corpus petition, may not seek discovery of relevant evidence in the possession of individuals. Entities that conducted DNA testing as part of the investigation of a murder at the behest and under the direction of law enforcement are properly viewed as members of the prosecution team for purposes of discovery. Individuals who where retained as independent expert witnesses to provide trial testimony are not viewed as part of the prosecution team.
27. Unzueta v. Akopyan (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 20, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10639, the Second Appellate District, Division 7 held that a Batson/Wheeler challenge is timely if made before the jury is impaneled. The court is required to conduct a full review of all suspect peremptory challenges. Dr. Akopyan was an anesthesiologist during the birth of the plaintiff’s baby, who breached his duty of care, but the breach did not cause the paralysis. The trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s Batson/Wheeler motion the court made sua sponte after defense counsel exercised peremptory challenges to 6 Hispanic prospective jurors out of 7 total challenges. The court erred in not requiring defense counsel to offer nondiscriminatory challenges that formed the basis for the trial court’s prima facia finding on racial bias. The prohibition against the exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on the basis of race or other group bias applies to civil as well as criminal cases. A party made a Batson/Wheeler motion after the defense dismissed four Hispanic jurors one day, and two additional Hispanic jurors the next day; while there may have been sufficient evidence to support a prima facie finding of group bias after the first day, the showing of discriminatory bias was strengthened by the excusals on the second day, and the motion filed the second day was timely; once the trial court found a prima facie showing of group bias, the court was required to elicit justifications for each of the six challenges forming the basis for the prima facie showing.
28. People v. Singh (2019) ___Cal.App.5th___, reported on November 20, 2019, in 2019 Los Angeles Daily Journal 10648, the First Appellate District, Division 3 held that the trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM 1201. Substantial evidence supported the defendant lacking a lawful purpose for his actions, and the defendant moved the child a substantial distance under the circumstances. The offense of kidnaping an unresisting infant or child requires proof that the defendant moved the victim for an illegal purpose or with an illegal intent. The phrase illegal intent or for an illegal purpose is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. An instruction regarding the associated crime factor was unnecessary in a kidnaping case where there was no evidence or argument indicating that the defendant moved the child while intending to inflict pain or suffering.
1960 W Huntington Dr
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Offices of Acer Chiang posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Send a message to Law Offices of Acer Chiang:
Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, Litigation, Immigration