Legal Opinion

People v. Cain

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 8, 2000No. E025274PublishedCited by 30 opinions

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

  1. People v. ArbuckleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  2. People v. BaumannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  3. People v. WhisenandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. People v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  5. People v. CalaisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. People v. GiordanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. People v. MillardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. People v. SelivanovCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. ProsserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. People v. WilenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API