Legal Opinion

Bruner v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1989No. A044525PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERLEY, J.

Petitioner contends he was illegally committed because the magistrate refused to permit him to move for suppression of evidence at the preliminary hearing on the ground that the motion was untimely. We agree that the magistrate was required to hear the motion and that the information must be dismissed for the denial of a substantial right.

On September 23, 1988, petitioner appeared for preliminary hearing on charges of possession for sale of heroin and possession of a hypodermic needle. As the hearing commenced, defense counsel informed the magistrate that he had two witnesses…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Cuevas v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. People v. CiracoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Cox v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SHASTA CTY.California Court of Appeal · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API