Latest 3 Cases: People v. Sanchez (Criminal Law), Risperdal and Invega Cases (Drugs & Biotech), Nicole G. v. Braithwaite (Family Law)

Two’s Company: How About Three or More?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman discuss an amendment to Utah’s law against bigamy that recently went into effect. Grossman and Friedman provide a short history of bigamy and polygamy laws in the United States and explain how and why the laws are evolving.

Read More

People v. Sanchez

Docket: F076908(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 3, 2020

Judge: Jennifer R.S. Detjen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in an action where defendant entered a West plea to involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment with great bodily injury. The court held that the jury verdict of not guilty of murder did not preclude, on collateral estoppel grounds, a second trial on assault on a child causing death because the jury's verdict did not necessarily resolve an ultimate fact in defendant's favor as to the latter; the People's amendment to the information to add a charge of child endangerment with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury did not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness; and Penal Code section 654 did not preclude a subsequent trial on the first amended information.

Risperdal and Invega Cases

Dockets: B284002(Second Appellate District) , B284315(Second Appellate District) , B284317(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 3, 2020

Judge: Dhanidina

Areas of Law: Drugs & Biotech

Plaintiffs, two adolescents who were prescribed the antipsychotic drug risperidone after it was approved by the FDA to treat behavioral symptoms in children with autism, filed suit against Janssen for failure to adequately warn of the risk of gynecomastia on the drug's label. In the published portion of the opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court was correct to decide the issue of preemption without submitting any purported underlying factual questions to a jury. The court also held that Janssen did not meet its burden to establish its preemption defense and that plaintiffs' claims based on the information in table 21, studies 41 and 70, are not preempted. In this case, Janssen did not meet its burden to show by clear evidence that it fully informed the FDA and, in turn, the FDA rejected a proposed label change.

Nicole G. v. Braithwaite

Docket: B294228(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: June 3, 2020

Judge: Stratton

Areas of Law: Family Law

After a trial on both parties' domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) requests, the trial court denied Warren's requested DVRO and granted Nicole's requested DVRO against Warren. Warren appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by ordering him to move out of the property and by awarding use and possession of the property to Nicole. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the Domestic Violence Prevention Act and Family Code sections 6340, 6321, and 6324 authorize a court to order the restrained party to move out of property and allow the protected party to use and possess the property. In this case, while ownership of the property will be determined in the pending civil suit, the trial court had authority to make orders about the use and possession of the property. The court concluded that the DVRO, including the move-out order and use/possession order, did not exceed the bounds of reason.