Legal Opinion
Nienhouse v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 31, 1996No. A071273PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
Petitioner Todd Ernest Nienhouse is charged with several possessory drug and firearm offenses. He moved to dismiss the information (Pen. Code, § 995) 1 on the ground that he had been denied a substantial right at his preliminary hearing. The magistrate refused to allow petitioner to elicit exculpatory hearsay evidence on cross-examination of the sole prosecution witness, a police officer, on the ground that Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, permits the use of hearsay only by the prosecution. The superior court denied the motion, apparently agreeing with…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. RodriguesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- People v. PietersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Raven v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cooley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- People v. HayesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- In Re The Detention Of Marvin Allen Mead, Marvin Allen MeadSupreme Court of Iowa · 2010
- Galindo v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CNTY.California Supreme Court · 2010
- Galindo v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CNTY.California Supreme Court · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.