There are two things about this California Supreme Court opinion that are seriously confusing to me.
First, I cannot figure out why the Court decided to take the case. It's a unanimous opinion, so it's not an exceptionally difficult case, but that's not particularly unusual. It also reaches the correct result; but, again, that's not surprising either. The statute itself basically answers the sole question; as the Court itself begins its opinion:
"Penal Code section 417.3 makes it a felony to brandish a firearm in a threatening manner in the presence of a motor vehicle occupant 'in such a way as to cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear of bodily harm.' Does this brandishing offense require proof of both objective and subjective apprehension or fear? We conclude the statute requires only objective fear — i.e., that the brandishing would cause a reasonable person apprehension or fear, regardless of whether a particular victim actually experienced such fear."
Yeah. When the statute says "reasonable person," it means . . . reasonable person. Not the subjective belief of the particular victim here. Duh.
So the Court took up the case because the lower court opinion was obviously erroneous, right?
Nope. The Court of Appeal said the exact same thing, and the California Supreme Court unanimously affirms. So no need to displace the existing appellate opinion.
So it must be that there's a split in the lower courts? Nope. This is the only appellate opinion on the issue. The California Supreme Court's opinion doesn't disapprove of any other case.
So, for the life of me, I can't figure out why the Court thought it was important to take this one up. Maybe it's got a lot of free time these days? No idea.
Second, I would have sworn that I wrote something about the Court of Appeal's opinion at the time. I definitely remember reading it, and thinking that it was spot on right. I was absolutely confident that I posted something about the case on the day it was published. But I searched my posts; nope, nothing.
I even checked with a.i., which insisted that I had written something about it, and then described -- in exhaustive detail -- what I wrote, and yes, what it said sounded exactly like my thoughts at the time. Which caused me to check yet again. Nope. Seriously. I didn't write a thing.
Now, I recognize full well that I'm getting old, and hence perhaps more likely than ever to confabulate false thoughts about things I thought I had written down but actually hadn't.
But having artificial intelligence insist that I had written them down, and then setting forth precisely what I thought I had written; well, that's freaking me out a bit.
Because I definitely don't want that thing reading my mind.
I'm confident that, in fact, the a.i. agents are just hallucinating things (again) and doing so in a style that sounds like me.
Still. Weird.
Anyway, here's another unanimous California Supreme Court opinion that's definitely correct.
Even though I can't for the life of me figure out why they thought they needed to say so.
