The Supreme Court filed two opinions this morning. Both were unanimous decisions, although there was a separate concurring opinion in one.
In People v. Diaz, the court held that it is appropriate for a trial court to instruct a jury to consider a criminal defendant’s out-of-court statements with caution when those statements form the basis of a prosecution for making criminal threats, but that the trial court need not give the instruction sua sponte. The court affirmed the Sixth District Court of Appeal in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. Regarding the propriety of the instruction, the court disapproved an opinion by the Second District, Division Six. The court effectively overruled portions of its prior opinions that had required the instruction be given sua sponte.
The court concluded in Coffey v. Shiomoto that, in a reviewing the suspension of a driver’s license, a trial court could consider evidence in addition blood and breath test results to determine that a driver’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit. In the case before it, that other evidence included arrest reports, which described the physical manifestations of the driver’s intoxication, such as her general appearance, erratic driving, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and the strong odor of alcohol she projected. Affirming the Fourth District, Division Three, the court’s opinion was written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar. All justices signed that opinion, except Justice Goodwin Liu, who wrote a separate concurrence.