Hambarian v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court
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
- Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- People v. BreauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. Superior Court (Greer)California Supreme Court · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- People v. SnowCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
- Haraguchi v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- People v. GriffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- People v. LucasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Haworth v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.