Legal Opinion

People v. Moore

California Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1983No. Crim. 22852PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROUSSARD, J.

This appeal presents the question whether a probation department has a duty to preserve and disclose a urine sample when that sample is used as the basis for revocation of probation, We hold that the department, having requested a revocation hearing based on the test results of a urine sample, has a duty to preserve and disclose the sample even in the absence of a request therefor.

On July 1, 1977, defendant Frank Moore was charged by information with five counts of selling controlled substances in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivision (a). In an…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Giglio v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Lawn v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1971
  5. People v. HitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  3. People v. FarmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. FainIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  5. People v. Michael L.California Supreme Court · 1985

17 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