Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-09 -09 - Sep 09, 2026

argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-09 -09

Supreme Court of California 5h 33m 4 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 2 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening procedure and case list for this oral argument?

Patricia Guerrero 0:00

Recording in progress

Patricia Guerrero 0:18

Good morning. Welcome to oral argument before the California Supreme Court. And we're pleased to be joining you and also would like to welcome. There's a group, I believe, of about 15 students from Berkeley Law. Yes, the professor is raising his hand.

Unknown 0:33

No one

Patricia Guerrero 0:33

else is. Welcome. It's nice to have you here. The clerk may call the calendar, please.

Unknown 0:38

Good morning. The Supreme Court of California hearing for arguments in San Francisco on Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 at 9 a.m. Case number S286092. The people plaintiff and respondent versus Peter John Mano, defendant appellant. For appellant, Ms. Laura Babakin, appearing by video conference.

Laura Vavikin 0:57

Good morning, Your Honors.

Unknown 0:59

And for respondent, Ms. Elizabeth M. Brenner. Case number S292969, the people plaintiff and appellant versus Jacob Frederick Ball, defendant and respondent for appellant Mr. Michael C. Sampson. And for respondent Mr. Brandon Sullivan. And case number S150524, the people plaintiff and respondent versus Carlos Marvin Argueta, defendant and appellant for appellant Mr. William Whaley. And for respondent Mr. Gabriel Bradley.

Patricia Guerrero 1:32

Thank you. Calling the first matter, the people versus Mr. Minow. On this case, the court is pleased to be joined by Justice Mark Canasono from the Second District Court of Appeal. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

Laura Vavikin 1:52

Thank you. May it please the court, Laura Vavikin for appellant petitioner Peter Minow. A jury found Mr. Minow guilty of killing two people while driving under the influence. not injured, killed. Yet the judgment reflects no homicide conviction. The trial court dismissed both vehicular manslaughter verdicts and sentenced on the DUI causing injury counts. Counts the trial court itself found were less included offenses of vehicular manslaughter. The sole reason-

Patricia Guerrero 2:22

Can I stop you on that? Because that presents a threshold question. So the arguments here have focused on the application of a judicial exception to the rule that allows for multiple convictions, then there's a separate provision that governs punishment. And you're talking now about the judicial exception. But I guess I'm wondering whether this court has to first resolve whether the DUI convictions are necessarily included offenses of the vehicular manslaughter conviction.

Laura Vavikin 2:57

It does. Um, and, and yes, this petition for review was originally framed around the trial court's discretion to, uh, dismiss the greater offense in favor of the lesser, because in Menno, the court of appeal, uh, fourth, fourth district division one did find it was a lesser included. The petition review focused on a couple of cases, uh, Binkert being one of them. And as this court may know through the new authorities letters submitted by respondent, um, Binkert has been essentially overruled by the Second District Court of Appeal. And so I do believe, to answer your question, the threshold question that must be answered today is whether it is, in fact, a lesser included. And I am prepared to proceed on that argument if the court is, I guess, if that's a question the court is prepared to also address today.

Patricia Guerrero 3:52

OK. And we'll hear from the other side, but please proceed with your argument.

Laura Vavikin 3:56

Okay, thank you. I think there's some background information that's going to be relevant to this part of the argument, is that in this case, it presents a couple of unique circumstances. In Yanez and in Lossing, which are two of the new recently decided cases, those were pleas. In Mr. Minow's case, this was a trial. The accusatory pleading, and I'll get to why that will be important, is in Mr. Minow's case, actually charged vehicle code 23140, 23152, and 23153 in the conjunctive, even though the statute itself points to the disjunctive using the or.

Patricia Guerrero 4:39

Why does that matter? Isn't that normally how these offenses are pled?

Laura Vavikin 4:44

They are. And I think this court has recognized that in a case, people v. Smith, the attorney general conceded and this court also recalled, and I think that was in Barracks as well, that that is a normal function of what the district attorney's office does is they plead it in the conjunction.