Legal Opinion

People v. Hernandez

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 30, 1978No. Crim. No. 31609; Crim. No. 31973PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.—

In Eleazer v. Superior Court (1970) 1 Cal.3d 847 [83 Cal.Rptr. 586, 464 P.2d 42], the California Supreme Court held that due *410process requires that the police or prosecuting authority “make such inquiries and arrangements- as are reasonably necessary to enable the prosecution and defense to locate [an informer who is a material witness whose testimony might be helpful to the defense].” (1 Cal.3d at pp. 852-853.) In People v. Goliday (1973) 8 Cal.3d 771 [106 Cal.Rptr. 113, 505 P.2d 537], the high court ruled that this duty applies in the situation of informers who serve “as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. HitchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Eleazer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. People v. GolidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  4. People v. MejiaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. Bellizzi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. RanceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
  2. Parks v. CareyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  3. People v. GuerecaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API