People v. Tillis
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.
In this case we must apply reciprocal discovery statutes adopted by the voters as part of Proposition 115 in the June 5, 1990, General *287Election. Specifically at issue is the requirement that the prosecution disclose to the defense the names and addresses, “along with any relevant written or recorded statements, of all witnesses it intends to call at trial.” (Pen. Code, § 1054.1, subds. (a), (f); all further statutory citations are to this code; see also § 1054.3 [defense disclosure duties].)1 In Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 815 P.2d…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- In Re SassounianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Izazaga v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- People v. RiggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Alford v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Alvarado v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. FayedCalifornia Supreme Court · 2020
- People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.