Legal Opinion
People v. Trombetta
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 31, 1985No. Docket Nos. A016358, A016374, A017265, A017266PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
POCHÉ, J.
In this case we are asked to decide whether the Hitch 1 duty to preserve breath samples is based upon the federal or the state Constitution. As will appear, we conclude that the Hitch rule rests on the federal Constitution. We also conclude that there is no constitutional impediment to the introduction into evidence of intoxilyzer breath test results.
Background
Defendants were charged in municipal court with misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. (Former Veh. Code, §§ 23101, subd. (a) or 23102, subd. (a); see now Veh. Code, §§ 23153, subd. (a), or…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- California v. TrombettaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Valenzuela-BernalSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- People v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- People v. GonzalesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. SimpsonCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2003