Recent Cases of Interest July 10, 2026

UNPUBLISHED People v. Barnes, 23CA0337 (June 25, 2026) The prosecution is not entitled to a jury instruction on provocation unless there is evidence that the defendant intentionally goaded the other person into attacking him so that he would have a pretext to injure or kill him. Said differently, it is not enough to show the defendant’s conduct caused the other person to attack. Instead, there must be evidence that it was the defendant’s purpose in engaging in the conduct to cause the other person to attack. As such, the trial court reversibly erred by providing the provocation instruction where the evidence showed Barnes’ act of attempting to steal the victim’s car caused the victim to attack Barnes, but there was no evidence that Barnes intended to goad the victim into attacking by attempting to steal his car.

Immigration law is complex and a trap for the unwary. Get help from a professional (not me) for your non-citizen clients. This is an example. Lau, as an LPR, should be considered admitted and therefore removable only if the government can establish that he was deportable. However, he left the U.S., and when he returned, the border officer declared he was “seeking admission” because there was a pending criminal matter. Thus, he could be removed as “inadmissible.” After he pleaded guilty, the conviction not only rendered him “inadmissible,” it substantiated the border officer’s decision (retroactively) to designate him as “seeking admission.”