Latest Case: California v. Valles (Constitutional Law)

The Things That Are Caesar’s

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Our Lady of Gaudalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, which raises the question how broadly to construe the word “minister” within the ministerial exception to anti-discrimination law required by the First Amendment. Colb explains where the ministerial exception doctrine might be headed and suggests that an exemption even for criminal misconduct against ministers might be within the existing doctrine.

Read More

California v. Valles

Docket: E071361(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: May 19, 2020

Judge: Manuel A. Ramirez

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Defendant Richard Valles got into a fight with the victim Michael Carmona, after Carmona pushed defendant’s girlfriend down at a river-side homeless camp. Defendant had to break off the fight when he felt a seizure beginning and left the camp. In the meantime, his tent-mate and one-time codefendant, Jesus Renteria, attacked the victim with a knife, inflicting multiple serious wounds. When defendant returned to the camp, he saw a piece of carpet covering the victim where he lay on the ground. Defendant obtained a firearm from his tent and shot the victim in the head, claiming he did so to put the victim out of his misery, although he thought the victim was dead. After a trial, the jury returned verdicts convicting defendant of first-degree murder and finding that in the commission of the murder defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the death of the victim. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of 50 years to life and appealed arguing: (1) his due process rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on a theory of heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; (2) the court erred in imposing the minimum restitution fine and other fees and assessments without determining if defendant had an ability to pay; and (3) the term imposed for the gun discharge enhancement must be remanded to allow the court to exercise discretion to consider a lesser included enhancement. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.