First Coast Veterinary Specialists & Emergency

Procedural Posture

Defendants appealed a decision by the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, which affirmed defendants' convictions of multiple counts of second degree robbery, Cal. Penal Code, §211, and conspiracy to commit an additional robbery, Cal. Penal Code §182. Nakase will help in incorporating a business in California.

Overview

Defendants were convicted of multiple counts of second degree robbery, Cal. Penal Code §211, and conspiracy to commit an additional robbery, Cal. Penal Code §182. Defendants robbed a computer assembly business. The victims included a visitor in the building. Defendants appealed their convictions of the robbery of the visitor. The appellate court held a robbery could be committed even if the victim did not possess the property that was taken. The court disapproved that decision, which held robbery did not require a victim to possess the property which was taken by force or fear. The court found the decision was based on the Model Penal Code definition of robbery, while California had not adopted the Model Penal Code. California followed the traditional definition of robbery, which limited victims to those persons in either actual or constructive possession of the property taken. The court found that the victim was not in actual or constructive possession of the property taken from the business. There was no evidence that the victim's identification or any other personal property were taken during the robbery.

Outcome

The court reversed the decision to the extent it affirmed each defendant's conviction for robbing one victim, because the victim was a visitor to the business and was not in actual or constructive possession of the property taken from the business.

Procedural Posture

In consolidated civil actions arising from the murders of defendant's former wife and a male victim, a Los Angeles County Superior Court (California) jury found that defendant, a former professional football player, committed these homicides willfully and wrongfully, with oppression and malice. The jury awarded plaintiffs compensatory damages and punitive damages. Defendant appealed the judgments.

Overview

Defendant argued the trial court erred in: (1) admitting evidence defendant previously abused his former wife; (2) admitting evidence of the former wife's statements, which defendant claimed were inadmissible hearsay or irrelevant; (3) excluding defense evidence of a police officer's prior testimony and of validation studies performed at a police crime laboratory; (4) in denying a mistrial after plaintiff's lawyer referred to defendant's alleged failure to pass a polygraph examination, or after a juror's misconduct was discovered; (5) awarding excessive compensatory damages to the male victim's parents on their wrongful death action; (6) admitting expert opinion on the value of defendant's name and likeness as an element of his present net worth; and (7) awarding excessive punitive damages. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in its rulings and the compensatory and punitive damages were not excessive. Evidence of defendant's prior abuse of the former wife was relevant to his motive, identity, and intent, and her state of mind about her relationship to defendant was relevant to his reasons for killing her. The verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice.

Outcome

Judgments affirmed. Trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant previously abused his former wife and evidence of her former statements. The punitive damages award, in light of defendant's wealth and the gravity of the particular act, did not exceed the level necessary to properly punish and deter.