Legal Opinion
People v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 31, 1992No. Docket Nos. G012303, G012309PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSBY, Acting P. J.
We have consolidated these writ petitions arising from similar pretrial motions in unrelated capital cases to resolve these questions: Do the reciprocal discovery provisions of Penal Code section 1054 et seq. require defense disclosure of penalty phase evidence? Yes. Are they constitutional? Yes.
I
In both cases the prosecution served informal requests for discovery pursuant to Penal Code section 1054.5, subdivision (b), part of Proposition 115’s “Crime Victims Justice Reform Act.” Defense counsel reftised to cooperate, and the district attorney brought motions to…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Williams v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- People v. MirandaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- People v. Superior Court of Monterey CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. MartinezSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.