Legal Opinion

People v. Hatch

California Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 2000No. S074630PublishedCited by 106 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The primary issue before us is whether the constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy bar retrial after a dismissal under section 1385 of the Penal Code.1 We conclude they do not under the facts of this case.

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Daniel William Hatch was originally charged by information with seven sex offenses: (1) two counts of forcible penetration by a foreign *264object (§ 289, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2); (2) two counts of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c); counts 3 and 6); and (3) three counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2);…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Schlup v. DeloSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Tibbs v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

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

3Cited by106 opinions

  1. People v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. People v. MauryCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  3. People v. StitelyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  4. People v. MonterrosoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. People v. GallardoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017

101 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