Legal Opinion

People v. Muhammad

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 29, 2003No. B160121PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, J.

It is a general rule that, outside of a contempt proceeding, trial courts lack inherent power to impose a monetary sanction against an attorney for misconduct in court. The authority to impose such a sanction must be found in a statute. This has been the declared law in California for at least the past 25 years. (See Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626 [150 Cal.Rptr. 461, 586 P.2d 942].) We apply it here in the context of a monetary fine levied against a prosecutor for exercising jury peremptory challenges in violation of the constitutional principles laid down in People…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. People v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  3. People v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. People v. BurgenerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People v. DeHoyosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Nathan D. Alexander, Ii, and Amy Gepfert v. Joseph DeangeloCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
  3. People v. Landers, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. People v. WardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Sino Century Development Ltd. v. FarleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

7 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