Latest 2 Cases: In re S.E. (Criminal Law), People v. Garcia (Criminal Law)

Can the Republicans Cancel the Elections, Even Though Trump Can’t?

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether (and how) President Trump or his supporters in Congress could cancel the 2020 elections, citing public safety as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Buchanan points out that because states control the procedures for the election, Trump would need Republican governors of certain blue states to shut down their state’s elections—something Buchanan stops short of saying is likely or unlikely.

Read More

The Lessons the Coronavirus Crisis Can Teach Us About the Religious Liberty that Serves the Public Good (aka the Framers’ Religious Liberty)

MARCI A. HAMILTON

Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s leading church-state scholars, describes some of the lessons the novel coronavirus pandemic can teach us about religious liberty. Hamilton points out that COVID-19 is nondenominational and nonpartisan, yet we are already seeing some groups claim to be exempt from the public-health prohibitions on large gatherings, on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Read More

In re S.E.

Docket: F078904(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2020

Judge: Jennifer R.S. Detjen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's restitution order against defendant, then age 16, who admitted to making criminal threats in violation of Penal Code 422. The court held that the juvenile court erred by applying the presumption of causality contained in Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(4)(A) to victim restitution ordered under section 730.6. However, the court rejected defendant's claim that his conduct was not shown to be a substantial factor in an injury to the so-called derivative victims. The court also held that the juvenile court properly imposed interest on the amount of restitution.

People v. Garcia

Docket: B293491(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: March 18, 2020

Judge: Brian M. Hoffstadt

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

A trial court does not have the discretion to substitute the firearm enhancement found true by the jury for a lesser enhancement never presented to that jury. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal applied People v. Tirado, (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 637, which held that Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h) does not grant a trial court the discretion to substitute lesser included enhancements, at least where the greater enhancement is legally and factually valid. The court wrote that this is the result dictated by the statute's plain language; by the separation of powers absent a legislative override; and by the rules governing when to instruct the jury on lesser offenses and enhancements. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.