Legal Opinion

Hambarian v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided June 12, 2002No. S097450PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BAXTER, J.

Once again we are asked to consider the circumstances under which a superior court may or must recuse a prosecutor’s office because of *829the office’s use of consultants compensated by the victim. In People v. Eubanks (1996) 14 Cal.4th 580 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, 927 P.2d 310] (Eubanks), we found the superior court did not abuse its discretion in ordering recusal of the Santa Cruz County District Attorney’s Office which, when faced with a “ ‘substantial’ ” debt for consultants in comparison to its resources, had asked the victim to pay the debt as well as “other significant costs…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. People v. BreauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. People v. Superior Court (Greer)California Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. People v. SnowCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Haraguchi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. People v. GriffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  4. People v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

23 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