In Dominguez, the defendant lived in the same apartment building as two female girls, ages four and six. The defendant did not know the two girls and was not related to either of them. According to the prosecution, the defendant repeatedly hugged the two girls, twice asked the six-year-old where her mother was, and told the six-year-old he wanted to take her to a restaurant. The defendant physically carried the four-year-old outside of the apartment building while the six-year-old followed. When the defendant came upon another man in the building, the defendant stopped and put the four-year-old down.

The defendant claimed he never saw the two girls before the incident and denied picking up or touching the four-year-old. The defendant said that he was merely trying to stop the girls from leaving the apartment building gate to play, wanting them to stay inside. The defendant denied asking the girls if they wanted to go to a restaurant.

For example, the crime of felony assault includes the lesser offense of simple assault. Simple assault requires that the prosecution prove the following elements:

• The defendant willfully attempted to inflict injury upon another, or the defendant willfully attempted to threaten to inflict injury upon another; and


• The defendant had an apparent present ability to carry out such injury or threat; and


• This injury or threat causes the victim to have a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

Felony assault requires that the prosecution prove the elements of simple assault plus the fact that the defendant used a deadly weapon. Thus, all the elements of simple assault are required to prove felony assault. The jury would be given instructions to convict the defendant of either felony or simple assault, rather than only be given instructions to convict the defendant of felony assault.

An instruction on a lesser-included offense is warranted if

1. "the elements of the lesser offense are a subset of the elements of the charged offense, and


2. the evidence would permit a jury rationally to find [the defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit [him/her] of the greater." Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 716 (1989); Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205, 208 (1973)).

California Penal Code 594 states the following in regards to vandalism: “(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

1. Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.


2. Damages.


3. Destroys."

Vandalism can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending upon the circumstances.

You will often hear the defendant was charged with “assault & battery.” This means that the defendant is charged with two crimes. Assault is different from battery. Assault actually does not need to cause an injury or any physical contact. Assault is just the attempt to cause the injury. Therefore, even if no one gets hurt, you can still be charged with this crime.

For example, a person might be at a bar and he might take a swing at someone. The person dodges the punch. The person who took the swing can still be properly charged with criminal assault.

Now, picture the same scenario above, but the person actually swung a baseball bat at the person and still missed. The person will likely be charged with criminal assault with a deadly weapon under Penal Code Section 245, which can be a serious felony. This can happen even though the accused did not actually strike the alleged victim.

In Ulloa, the defendant was convicted of first degree residential burglary, receiving stolen property, and misdemeanor vandalism as a result of breaking into an apartment leased together with his then-wife, and taking her purse and $900 from her wallet following a domestic violence confrontation. On appeal, the defendant contended that he could not possibly commit burglary as a matter of law because he was a cotenant in the apartment where the alleged burglary occurred.

The appellate court has disagreed. Although both the defendant and the victim jointly signed an apartment lease, and the lease was in full force and effect at the time of the charged crimes occurred, the defendant did not own the property, and his possessory interest was not “unconditional” due to abandoning his unconditional possessory interest in the apartment by moving out.

A recent California Court of Appeals decision, People v. Archer, held that, in medical marijuana possession cases, the jury must be informed that the patient has a right to possess an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.

The California Legislature recently enacted Health and Safety Code section 11362.77 of Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which provides that the “legal limit” for possessing medical marijuana was eight ounces. However, before the legislatures enacted section 11362.77, the only relevant section as to how much marijuana a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Under section 11362.5, subdivision (d) of the Heath and Safety Code, the only qualification concerning the amount of marijuana that a medical marijuana patient could possess (or cultivate) was that the marijuana be for the "personal medical purposes" of the patient. (section 11362.5, subd. (d).)

Therefore, assuming section 11362.77, subdivision (a) of the MMPA, is unconstitutional, as the parties jointly contended, the relevant law on the issue of the amount of marijuana Archer could possess would be section 11362.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and the cases interpreting that statute.

As noted, courts have interpreted this qualification to mean a reasonable amount: "[T]he quantity possessed by the patient or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. What precisely are the 'patient's current medical needs' [is], of course . . . a factual question to be determined by [the jury]." (People v. Trippet, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1549.)

Here, the evidence in the record showed Archer was using about a half pound of medical marijuana each month in April 2006, mostly by ingesting it, and that he possessed about 1.72 pounds of marijuana—or about a three-month supply of medical marijuana—when police entered his home and confiscated it and his plants. There was no evidence Archer possessed the 1.72 pounds of marijuana for purposes other than for his own personal medical use.

Being arrested for DUI in Palmdale can be an overwhelming experience, especially since there are several issues to consider, such as the standing of your driving privileges. Many motorists in Palmdale are not aware that their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who makes their arrest. After your arrest, you only have ten days to schedule a DMV hearing to defend your name and fight to retain your driver’s license. Failure to schedule a hearing with the DMV will result in an automatic driving suspension of thirty days or more and a surrender of a DMV hearing.

In order to make sure that your rights are aggressively and effectively defended, you should get in touch with an experienced Palmdale DMV hearings lawyer. At Wallin & Klarich, our skilled Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending those facing criminal offenses for more than 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources to assist you in obtaining a successful outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 1-888-280-6839 or visit our website at www.wklaw.com for more information.

The Court has upheld the trial court’s finding that statements police officer relied upon to determine existence of probable cause to arrest an individual were admissible against hearsay objection because they were not offered for its truth but to show either officer’s state of mind or existence of special circumstances. Among other evidentiary issues, the Court has determined that the exclusion of defendant's handwritten statements made after he shot the officers was not erroneous because there was ample evidence to doubt his motives and sincerity to qualify it as a spontaneous statement exception to the hearsay rule or a statement of declarant’s then existing mental or physical state.

Many motorists in Lancaster do not realize that if they are arrested for DUI, their driver’s license will be taken away from them. At this point, a person charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs only has 10 days to schedule an administrative hearing with the DMV. License suspension in Southern California is a serious matter and a DUI conviction can impose many harsh consequences. However, with an experienced Lancaster DMV hearings lawyer on your side, you may be able to retain your driving privileges and reach a successful outcome in your DUI case.

If you have been arrested for DUI in Lancaster, do not waste any time in contacting a skilled criminal defense attorney who has experience handing DUI cases and DMV hearings. At Wallin & Klarich, our aggressive lawyers will fight your license suspension by challenging the technical basis for your arrest and the charges being held against you. Our criminal defense law firm has been defending the rights of individuals facing criminal charges such as DUI for more than 30 years. Call Wallin & Klarich today at 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.

The defendant raised many issues in appeal. The Court has dismissed a claim of violation of the defendant’s right to counsel when the jail personnel had entered defendant's cell while he was in court and read all of his notes which included materials sent to the defendant by his attorney. The trial court made a factual finding that Sacramento County jail personnel had read defendant's privileged legal materials. However, because the defendant did not offer any evidence that jail personnel had communicated the confidential defense information to the prosecution, the trial court determined that defendant had failed to make out a prima facie violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

The Supreme Court has first established that not every intrusion into attorney-client privileged communication automatically establishes a prima facia violation of the Sixth Amendment. In fact, to be cognizable on appeal there must be a showing of evidence that the confidential communication was actually conveyed to the prosecution team for the defendant to claim that his right to counsel was violated.

In the state of California, the driver in the above situation will be facing felony hit and run and possibly homicide charges. Potential penalties can include prison time, hefty fines, and loss of driving privileges for the rest of his life.

Most people would expect that the victim be entitled to reimbursement for certain medical expenses as well as psychological or other mental health counseling (not to exceed $10,000.00).

What many people may not know is that victims of crimes may be entitled to be reimbursed for many other expenses, including:

• Non-medical remedial care and treatment in accordance with a religious method of healing recognized by the state


• Job retraining


• Claims for an increase in residential security for the victim’s home


• Relocation costs


• Child care


• Funeral costs (if the victim died as a result of the crime)

When evaluating the prospect of criminal allegations of conspiracy, consider whether some sort of agreement (formal or informal) was in place. Additionally, this "agreement" needs to be followed by the commission of any overt act to further the conspiracy.

The following elements of criminal conspiracy must be proven by the California prosecutor:

1. Two or more persons came to an "understanding" to commit a criminal act


2. The accused knew of the criminal purpose and willfully joined in


3. Any of the conspirators knowingly committed an overt act to advance the objective of the conspiracy

For the prosecution to meet its burden for a carjacking conviction, it must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the taking of the motor vehicle was done with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the true owner of their right to use or possess the motor vehicle. As you can see, several complex elements must be met and proven to support allegations of carjacking.

After being arrested for DUI in Pasadena, a DMV hearing will most likely take place. However a hearing does not just happen. A person must schedule a DMV hearing ten days after their arrest. It is fairly common for motorists to not know that their driver’s license will be taken away by the police officer who conducts their arrest. If a person fails to schedule their DMV hearing within the allotted time, their driving privileges will be automatically suspended for thirty days, or more, and they surrender their DMV hearing.

Although being arrested for DUI can be an overwhelming experience, a person should be as proactive as possible and seek out a skilled Pasadena DMV hearings attorney who will help them through their challenging time. An experienced lawyer will also make sure that you keep your driving privileges after being charged with DUI. At Wallin & Klarich, our aggressive Southern California criminal defense attorneys have been defending the rights of those charged with DUI and several other offenses for more than 30 years. We have the legal knowledge and resources that you need to obtain a positive outcome at your DMV hearing and in your DUI case. Contact Wallin & Klarich today by calling 888-280-6839 or visit www.wklaw.com for more information.