Defendant juvenile appealed from two orders, entered in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), adjudging him a ward of the juvenile court under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 on findings that he received stolen property and committed rape by threat of great bodily harm.
Two minors were walking down a public street in a high crime area. class action lawyers california A passing police officer stopped the youths, questioning them as to their identities, addresses, and the purpose of their presence in the area. As a result of this stop, certain property found on defendant's person was determined to have been stolen in a recent burglary. In a separate incident, a petition was filed alleging that defendant raped a woman by threat of great bodily harm. The trial court adjudged defendant a ward of the court under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 upon findings that defendant received stolen property and committed rape. The court reversed the order sustaining the stolen property petition, finding the initial stop wholly unjustified; the officer justified the stop because it occurred during school hours and he was aware that three black males were wanted in connection with recent burglaries in the area. The court affirmed the order sustaining the rape petition, finding that defendant knew the wrongfulness of his acts, as required by Cal. Penal Code § 26(1), because he used deadly force, raped his victim in a private area, and asked his victim if she was going to call the police.
The court reversed the order sustaining the petition for receiving stolen property, finding that the evidence admitted against him was illegally obtained; his stop was wholly unwarranted. However, the court affirmed the order sustaining the petition for rape, finding clear proof that he knew his acts were wrong from his use of deadly force, the private location of the acts, and his asking the victim if she would call the police.
Appellant associations sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Kings County (California), which upheld respondent city's certification of an environmental impact report and the approval of the proposed project of real party in interest power company. Appellants contended that the report did not provide sufficient information upon which respondent could have properly approved the project.
The court was called upon to determine the sufficiency of an environmental impact report (EIR) for a proposed 26.4-megawatt coal-fired cogeneration plant to be constructed in respondent city by real party in interest power company. Appellant associations challenged the EIR based on the adequacy of the discussion of the impact of this project on the local environment with regard to air quality, water use, and waste disposal, the adequacy of the discussion of the cumulative impacts of this project and similar projects with regard to air quality, water use and waste disposal, as well as other issues alleged to be insufficient. The lower court had approved respondent's certification of the project. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's order. The court found that the EIR was inadequate because it contained insufficient information in several respects for respondent to have made an informed decision whether to approve the project. The matter was remanded for further consideration.
The court reversed the trial court's order, which upheld respondent city's certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and the approval of the proposed project of real party in interest power company. The court found that the EIR was inadequate because it contained insufficient information in several respects for respondent to have made an informed decision as to whether to approve the project.