Legal Opinion
People v. Campbell
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 30, 1982No. Crim. 11053PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
Defendant Carl Campbell contends on appeal that his prosecution for three narcotic offenses 1 was barred by the statutory grant of “transactional immunity” conferred by Penal Code section 1324 when it was invoked by the district attorney to compel his testimony in another felony case. The People contend defendant was given a constitutionally adequate substitute of “use immunity” by the court in the other case and by the trial court here which precluded the use of the testimony.
We reverse the conviction pursuant to the mandate of Penal Code section 1324. We hold that where, as…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Counselman v. HitchcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Brown v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Ullmann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- California v. ByersSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SwinehartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Fuller v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- People v. WiselyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- People v. St. JosephCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- People v. ThompsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.