People v. Cain
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McKINSTER, J.
At issue in this case is the scope of a criminal defendant’s due process rights at a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be made to the victim by the defendant pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 273.5, subdivision (h)(2). More specifically, does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to call and cross-examine the psychotherapist who provides counseling to the victim of the defendant’s crime? We answer this question in the negative.
Defendant Randy Lee Cain pled no contest to a single count of violation of section 273.5 (infliction of corporal injury on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- People v. ArbuckleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. BaumannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- People v. WhisenandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- People v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- People v. CalaisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- People v. GiordanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- People v. MillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- People v. SelivanovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. ProsserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- People v. WilenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.