Legal Opinion

People v. Thompson

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 2, 2006No. B184566PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

PERREN, J.

Juan L. Thompson appeals his conviction for the sale of cocaine base. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) He contends that the trial court erred by denying his Pitchess motion for discovery without conducting an in camera review of the requested police personnel records. In Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1026 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 112 P.3d 2], our Supreme Court concluded that any “plausible” showing that “might or could have occurred” is sufficient to require in camera review. Thompson, however, is unable to satisfy this unquestionably low threshold.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Pitchess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. People v. MoocCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Warrick v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. People v. GalanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  2. People v. SandersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. People v. Belyew CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020
  4. People v. Compton CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. People v. Escobar CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2014

13 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