Judicial Notice
Category > Judicial Notice
Factual finding in a prior decision may be the subject of judicial notice if it has res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent action.Even though a factual finding in a prior judicial decision may not establish the truth of that fact for purposes of judicial notice, the finding itself may be a proper subject of judicial notice if it has a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent action.
id: 17906
Where defendant was charged with petty theft with a prior, the court erred in taking judicial notice of the alleged prior.When an alleged prior conviction has been denied and not bifurcated, the trial judge may not take judicial notice of its records (Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) as conclusive proof of that alleged prior conviction. The issue must be determined by the jury.id: 10470
The appellate court properly denied a request to take judicial notice of postjudgment evidence of traffic improvements made after the accident.Defendant was convicted at separate trials of implied malice murder and gross vehicular manslaughter. On appeal, he requested judicial notice of safety improvements the county’s traffic engineer had made after the incident. The court properly denied the request for judicial notice as the information had not been before the trial court, and was postjudgment evidence going to the merits of the conviction. id: 23813
The trial court did not err by taking judicial notice of the co-conspirator’s conviction as the shooter. The trial court did not err by taking judicial notice of the conviction of a coconspirator as the evidence was not offered to show defendant’s guilt but rather to explain the context of defendant’s bragging in the wiretapped conversations. id: 24044
The trial court erred by commenting it could take judicial notice that a semiautomatic weapon could not be easily converted to automatic as defendant described. While defendant was testifying at the penalty phase retrial, the court improperly commented that it could take judicial notice of the physical impossibility of converting a weapon into a fully automatic by adjusting the trigger spring as defendant testified. This was not a proper subject for judicial notice as it was not universally known or subject to easy verification. However, the error was not prejudicial because defendant’s credibility had already been seriously impaired by that time.id: 22332
The appellate court took judicial notice of the fact that “Ambien” was a controlled substance so the instructional error on the enhancement was harmless. Defendant argued the enhancement for administering a controlled substance for the purpose of committing sexual penetration (Penal Code section 12022.75) must be vacated because the prosecution presented no evidence that “Ambien” was a controlled substance. The court found the issue was not whether the prosecution failed to prove an element of the offense because the jury instruction completely removed that issue from the jury’s consideration. The trial was conducted as if Ambien’s status as a controlled substance was a presumed fact. The court took judicial notice (using the Physician’s Desk Reference) of that fact and found the instructional error was harmless.id: 22155
Court properly took judicial notice of the fact that LHWD was a district for purposes of misappropriation statute based upon the definition in the Water Code.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to misappropriate public funds. The trial court was entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that the Lost Hills Water District (LHWD) was a district for purposes of the misappropriation statute, Penal Code section 424, subdivision 1, because a district under Water Code section 34013 means a water district, like the LHWD, formed pursuant to the California Water District Act. Moreover, the trial court's instruction that LHWD was a water district for purposes of section 424, subdivision 1, did not remove an essential element of the offense from the jury's consideration.id: 16059
Judicial notice of the federal lawsuit was proper notwithstanding that the court file was not made part of the record at trial.Defendant was unhappy with his representation and the trial court denied his Marsden motion. He then filed a lawsuit in federal court naming defense counsel and his prior attorneys (as well as the entire Los Angeles Public Defender's Office) as defendants. He then argued a conflict of interest existed which precluded his representation by defense counsel. The trial court denied the motion to relieve counsel without having read the federal complaint. On appeal, defendant and the People asked the court to take judicial notice of the court file of the federal lawsuit. In certain circumstances, the court may grant judicial notice of matters not made part of the record at trial. Such action was proper in the instant case. There could be no unfairness to either side since both parties requested that the court judicially notice the federal lawsuit.id: 13120
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245