Cal. Codes » Penal Code
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 1054 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be interpreted to give effect to all of the following purposes:

(a)To promote the ascertainment of truth in trials by requiring timely pretrial discovery.

(b)To save court time by requiring that discovery be conducted informally between and among the parties before judicial enforcement is requested.

(c)To save court time in trial and avoid the necessity for frequent interruptions and postponements.

(d)To protect victims and witnesses from danger, harassment, and undue delay of the proceedings.

(e)To provide that no discovery shall occur in criminal cases except as provided by this chapter, other express statutory provisions, or as mandated by the Constitution of the United States.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Alford v. Superior Court, 63 P.3d 228 (Cal. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alford v. Superior Court, 63 P.3d 228 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 4× “Nor do we find statutory authority to compel the defense or the trial court to share with the prosecution the fruits of a successful Pitchess motion. The prosecution is entitled to discovery from the defense only in accordance with Penal Code sections 1054.”
Galindo v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 235 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 8× “III The parties dispute the impact in this case of the voters' June 1990 passage of Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act, a broad anticrime initiative measure that, as relevant here, (1) adopted a new scheme of reciprocal discovery in criminal cases; (2) limited…”
Izazaga v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 304 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq. [hereafter, the new discovery chapter].”
In Re Steele, 85 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “[3] Penal Code section 1054 et seq. is a comprehensive statutory scheme governing discovery at trial.”
People v. Buenrostro, 430 P.3d 1179 (Cal. 2018). “Defendant asserts that the court erroneously applied the criminal discovery statutes ( Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq. ) in excluding the evidence.”
In Re Littlefield, 851 P.2d 42 (Cal. 1993). · cites it 2× “Littlefield, the Public Defender of Los Angeles County, challenges a judgment of the municipal court holding him in contempt of court for refusing to comply with a discovery order made pursuant to the reciprocal discovery provisions of Proposition 115 (Pen.”
Magallan v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “[¶] (b) To save court time by requiring that discovery be conducted informally between and among the parties before judicial enforcement is requested, [¶] (c) To save court time in trial and avoid the necessity for frequent interruptions and postponements, [¶] (d) To protect…”
People v. Superior Court (baez), 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “(Pen.Code, § 1054, subd. (e); see also Pen.”
People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 227 P.3d 858 (Cal. 2010). “(Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq.; see Pen. Code, pt.”
State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1997). “The rule had been enacted into law in 1990 by initiative and codified in Cal. Penal Code, section 1054 (West Supp.”
Kling v. Superior Court, 239 P.3d 670 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “” Kling argues next that the People are not entitled to disclosure of the identity of the subpoenaed party or the nature of the documents sought because the discovery provisions of Proposition 115 (Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq.) require disclosure only of persons the defendant…”
Coito v. Superior Court, 278 P.3d 860 (Cal. 2012). “Such material “is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Cal. Penal Code § 1054(e) — 2 cases
Troiani v. Poole, 858 F. Supp. 1051 (S.D. Cal. 1994).
State Vs. Dist. Ct. (ojeda (francisco)), 2018 NV 94 (Nev. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.