In re Michael M.

50 Citing cases

  1. Lipp v. State

    246 Md. App. 105 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2020)   Cited 11 times

    In a California case with similar facts to those here, the defendant was convicted for a hate crime after he wrote racial slurs on the classroom door of the only African-American teacher at a school and on a music building where multiple African-American students sat in the morning after getting off the bus. In Re Michael M ., 86 Cal. App. 4th 718, 721–22, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). The defendant confessed to the crime and was convicted under the following statute:

  2. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

    32 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 379 times
    Holding § 52.1 does not require the victim to be targeted because of "an actual or perceived class or characteristic"

    (See, e.g., In reMichael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 725-726 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 10] [describing the intent element underlying hate crime legislation].) We disagree, as nothing in Civil Code section 52.1 requires any showing of actual intent to discriminate.

  3. In re Joseph L.

    No. A127279 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2010)

    The “sole function [of] a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 726.) Section 245, subdivision (a)(1), prohibits an assault “by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.”

  4. People v. Farrow

    No. A124568 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2010)

    Thus, our sole function as a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 726, fn. omitted.) Section 148, subdivision (a) provides: “Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician... in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment” is guilty of a misdemeanor.

  5. In re Javier Z.

    No. A117234 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2007)

    Where the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a juvenile court’s order sustaining certain criminal allegations, the reviewing court’s “sole function . . . is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 726.) Accordingly, “we ask not whether there is evidence from which the trier of fact could have reached some other conclusion, but whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to respondent, and presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier reasonably could deduce from the evidence, there is substantial evidence of appellant’s guilt, i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value, from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  6. In re P.H.N.

    No. C054163 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2007)

    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling. (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 726.) On November 26, 2005, a Honda Civic ran a red light and “T-boned” a BMW driven by Rebecca Cohen.

  7. In re Frank

    A102272 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2003)

    This same standard of review is applicable to juvenile appeals." (In re Michael M. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 718, 726, fns. omitted.) Robbery is defined as "the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."

  8. Morrison v. Pal

    CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00776-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018)

    One of Plaintiffs' cited authorities actually undercuts Plaintiffs' argument. In In re Michael M., 86 Cal. App. 4th 718, 730 (2001), the court distinguished between the use of the word "Nigger," one on hand, and the use of the phrase, "Kill the Niggers," on the other hand, noting that it was only the latter that was "reasonably interpreted as a direct, violent threat." Id.

  9. Perry v. Brown

    No. 2:08-cv-02771-MDS (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2009)

    In identifying the correct standard by which to consider Perry's claim, the Court of Appeal cited its own precedent to find that its "`sole function as a reviewing court in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Ex. 6 at 7 (quoting In re Michael M., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10, 16 (Cal.Ct.App. 2001)). Clearly, the Court of Appeal applied a standard that neither contradicted nor unreasonably applied established federal law.

  10. Francis v. State

    No. C 04-01309 SI (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2004)

    Section 52.1 is a part of California's Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, which was enacted in response to an increase in hate crimes against ethnic and other minorities. Jones v. Kmart Corp., 949 P.2d 941, 946-47 (Cal. 1998); In Re Michael M., 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10, 15 (Cal.Ct.App. 2001). On this basis, defendants maintain that Section 52.1 "is a hate crimes statute and requires factual allegations showing that one or more of the Defendants interfered or attempted to interfere with a constitutional or statutory right by threatening or committing violent acts."