Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

In re Eichorn

Court of Appeal of California
81 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 (1998)


Facts

James Eichorn (defendant), a homeless resident of Santa Ana, California, was cited by a police officer for violating a city ordinance that prohibited sleeping in designated public areas. At the time of his citation, Eichorn was in a sleeping bag outside a building in the civic center. When the police officer asked Eichorn why he did not go to the National Guard Armory (Armory), which was used as a homeless shelter, Eichorn stated that he had tried to do so once, but it was consistently full. Prior to trial, Eichorn requested funds to hire an expert to testify about the harmful effects of sleep loss. Additionally, Eichorn asked to present a defense of necessity. The trial court denied both of Eichorn’s requests. At a bench trial, Eichorn presented several expert witnesses who testified about a significantly rising homelessness rate, a lack of available beds for homeless individuals at shelters, and the fact that the Armory was over capacity on the night Eichorn was cited. One expert witness testified that most homeless individuals were in their situations involuntarily because they could not obtain consistent employment, and that these individuals slept outside because they had no other alternative. The trial court concluded that Eichorn’s proof was inadequate to support a necessity defense. Eichorn was convicted, and he appealed. The appellate department affirmed the conviction and denied Eichorn’s request to transfer the cause. Eichorn petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal of California.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Crosby, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.