postindictment preliminary hearing (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

postindictment preliminary hearing in California

34 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (19)

CaseFollowedCited
Hawkins v. Superior Courtred
cal · 1978 · cited in 24 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–2009
2 sentences

2009In Bowens , our court considered the effect of a then-newly adopted constitutional provision—article I, section 14.1—that abrogated an indicted criminal defendant’s right to a postindictment preliminary hearing, a right that this court, in Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 587-593 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ], had held must be afforded to such an individual by virtue of the equal protection clause of the state Constitution.

2009In Bowens , our court considered the effect of a then-newly adopted constitutional provision—article I, section 14.1—that abrogated an indicted criminal defendant’s right to a postindictment preliminary hearing, a right that this court, in Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 587-593 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ], had held must be afforded to such an individual by virtue of the equal protection clause of the state Constitution.

424
Bowens v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1991 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2024
2 sentences

2024(See Bowens v. Superior Court (1991) 1 Cal.4th 36, 39 [“a defendant indicted in California is no longer entitled to, and indeed may not be afforded, a postindictment preliminary hearing or any other similar procedure”].) There are, of course, other differences between removal proceedings and criminal prosecutions.

2009In addressing that issue, the court in Bowens first set forth the applicable general principle of law: “ ‘[W]hen constitutional provisions can reasonably be construed so as to avoid conflict, such a construction should be adopted. [Citations.] As a means of avoiding conflict, a recent, specific provision is deemed to carve out an exception to and thereby limit an older, general provision.’ ” (Bowens, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 45 , italics added.) The court in Bowens then explained how that principle applied to the situation before it: “To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be

23
Izazaga v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1991 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–2009
2 sentences

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)” (Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters’ adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

22
Sherwood v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1979 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
2 sentences

1980(See also Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 917 , 593 P.2d 862 ]; People v. Wiener (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 238, 247 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 110 ].) The trial court properly denied the motion for a postindictment preliminary hearing.

1980(See also Sherwood v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 183, 186 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 917 , 593 P.2d 862 ]; People v. Wiener (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 238, 247 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 110 ].) The trial court properly denied the motion for a postindictment preliminary hearing.

22
Martinez v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 1980 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1990
2 sentences

1990He maintains that upon the filing of a request for a postindictment preliminary hearing the indictment becomes “functus officio” (Martinez v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 975, 978 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 267 ]) and the state cannot proceed against him until it files a complaint with the municipal court.

1990He maintains that upon the filing of a request for a postindictment preliminary hearing the indictment becomes “functus officio” (Martinez v. Superior Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 975, 978 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 267 ]) and the state cannot proceed against him until it files a complaint with the municipal court.

12
Johnson v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1975 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1980
2 sentences

1980Petitioners responded to the new indictment with numerous motions, chief among which were motions to set aside the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish probable cause and indicated that the statute of limitations had run (§ 995, subd. 2); motions to dismiss on grounds that the prior appeal by the People from the orders setting aside the first group of indictments constituted an election of remedies by the People, barring further prosecution of the charges; motions to set aside the indictments on the ground that exculpatory evidence was withhe

1980Petitioners responded to the new indictment with numerous motions, chief among which were motions to set aside the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish probable cause and indicated that the statute of limitations had run (§ 995, subd. 2); motions to dismiss on grounds that the prior appeal by the People from the orders setting aside the first group of indictments constituted an election of remedies by the People, barring further prosecution of the charges; motions to set aside the indictments on the ground that exculpatory evidence was withhe

12
People v. Superior Courtgreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016He observes that the Court of Appeal in People v. Superior Court (Gevorgyan) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 602, 610-611 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 668 ], found this language unambiguously provides such a right and concluded that because there is no right to a postindictment preliminary hearing under California law (see Cal. Const., art.

2016He observes that the Court of Appeal in People v. Superior Court (Gevorgyan) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 602, 610-611 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 668 ], found this language unambiguously provides such a right and concluded that because there is no right to a postindictment preliminary hearing under California law (see Cal. Const., art.

11
In Re Marriage Casesred
cal · 2008 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009I, § 7) as it relates to the constitutionally mandated indictment process. [Citations.] Similarly, article I, section 14.1, also limits and thereby precludes a challenge based on the due process clause contained in article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, an issue not *408 reached by the court in Hawkins . " ( Bowens, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 45 ; see also Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 371-372 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] ( Izazaga ).) (5) Applying similar reasoning in the present context, we properly must view the adoption of Proposition 8 as carving out an

2009I, § 7) as it relates to the constitutionally mandated indictment process. [Citations.] Similarly, article I, section 14.1, also limits and thereby precludes a challenge based on the due process clause contained in article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, an issue not reached by the court in Hawkins.” (Bowens, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 45 ; see also Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356, 371-372 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] (Izazaga).) Applying similar reasoning in the present context, we properly must view the adoption of Proposition 8 as carving out an exception to

11
People v. Valentinegreen
cal · 1986 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

11
People v. Western Air Lines, Inc.green
cal · 1954 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

11
People v. Wienergreen
calctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
11
United States v. Orlando Delli Paoligreen
ca2 · 1956 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
Serrano v. Priestgreen
cal · 1976 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
People v. Arandared
cal · 1965 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
People v. Siegenthalergreen
cal · 1972 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
People v. Elliotgreen
cal · 1960 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
11
Abelleira v. District Court of Appealgreen
cal · 1941 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
11
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen
cal · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976
11
Powell v. Alabamagreen
scotus · 1932 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

CaseNegativeCited
Hawkins v. Superior Courtred
cal · 1978 · cited in 24 California opinions naming this issue, 1979–2009
2 sentences

2009In Bowens , our court considered the effect of a then-newly adopted constitutional provision—article I, section 14.1—that abrogated an indicted criminal defendant’s right to a postindictment preliminary hearing, a right that this court, in Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 587-593 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ], had held must be afforded to such an individual by virtue of the equal protection clause of the state Constitution.

2009In Bowens , our court considered the effect of a then-newly adopted constitutional provision—article I, section 14.1—that abrogated an indicted criminal defendant’s right to a postindictment preliminary hearing, a right that this court, in Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 587-593 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ], had held must be afforded to such an individual by virtue of the equal protection clause of the state Constitution.

124

Also cited on this issue (27)

CaseCitedYears
Stark v. Superior Court green
cal · 2011
1 sentence

2024As mentioned above, the “acts which can be punished under [removal proceedings] are broader than the behavior subject to criminal charges” (Stark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 411 ), and judgments in removal proceedings may not bar subsequent criminal prosecutions. ( Burleigh, supra, 145 Cal.35, 37.) But these differences do not impact the reliability of jury verdicts in removal proceedings, and we see no reason to treat verdicts in such proceedings differently from verdicts in criminal cases. c.

12024–2024
In the Matter of Burleigh green
cal · 1904
1 sentence

2024As mentioned above, the “acts which can be punished under [removal proceedings] are broader than the behavior subject to criminal charges” (Stark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 411 ), and judgments in removal proceedings may not bar subsequent criminal prosecutions. ( Burleigh, supra, 145 Cal.35, 37.) But these differences do not impact the reliability of jury verdicts in removal proceedings, and we see no reason to treat verdicts in such proceedings differently from verdicts in criminal cases. c.

12024–2024
People v. Aguirre green
calctapp · 1991
2 sentences

2002At the time Aguirre was to be arraigned on the indictment in the late 1980's ( Aguirre, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 377 , 277 Cal.Rptr. 771 ), a defendant charged by indictment had a right to a postindictment preliminary hearing. ( Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 592-593 , 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 , overruled by Proposition 115, effective June 5, 1990; see also 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Pretrial Proceedings, § 168, p. 373.) Since the passage of Proposition 115 in 1990, defendants no longer have such a right.

2002At the time Aguirre was to be arraigned on the indictment in the late 1980's ( Aguirre, supra, 227 Cal.App.3d at p. 377 , 277 Cal.Rptr. 771 ), a defendant charged by indictment had a right to a postindictment preliminary hearing. ( Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 592-593 , 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 , overruled by Proposition 115, effective June 5, 1990; see also 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Pretrial Proceedings, § 168, p. 373.) Since the passage of Proposition 115 in 1990, defendants no longer have such a right.

12002–2002
Maze v. State green
alaska · 1967
2 sentences

1992In Maze v. State (Alaska 1967) 425 P.2d 235 , the defendant claimed a right to a postindictment preliminary hearing.

1992In Maze v. State (Alaska 1967) 425 P.2d 235 , the defendant claimed a right to a postindictment preliminary hearing.

11992–1992
Chung v. Ogata green
haw · 1972
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
Serrano v. Priest green
cal · 1971
2 sentences

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal. Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)" ( Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) (5b) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters' adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

1991(See, e.g., People v. Valentine (1986) 42 Cal.3d 170, 181 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 25 , 720 P.2d 913 ]; Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 596 ; People v. Western Airlines, Inc. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 621, 637 [ 268 P.2d 723 ].)” (Izazaga, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 371.) To the extent Hawkins mandates that an indicted defendant be afforded a postindictment preliminary hearing, the voters’ adoption of article I, section 14.1 must be seen as abrogating that holding, and limiting the scope of the state constitutional right of equal protection (Cal. Const., art.

11991–1991
Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden green
mass · 1974
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F.Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F.Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F.Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has su

11991–1991
Seim v. State green
nev · 1979
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F.Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F.Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F.Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has su

11991–1991
State v. Robinson green
delsuperct · 1980
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
United States Ex Rel. Kline v. Lane green
ilnd · 1989
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
State v. Clark green
or · 1981
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F.Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F.Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F.Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has su

11991–1991
Whitman v. Superior Court green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

1991(See also Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d, 160 , 820 P.2d 262 ] [challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 provisions permitting hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings]; Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [ 285 Cal. Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] [ Izazaga ; challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 reciprocal discovery provisions]; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] [challenge to retroactive application of Prop. 115]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 326 , 801

1991(See also Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d, 160 , 820 P.2d 262 ] [challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 provisions permitting hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings]; Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [ 285 Cal. Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] [ Izazaga ; challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 reciprocal discovery provisions]; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] [challenge to retroactive application of Prop. 115]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 326 , 801

11991–1991
United States v. Simon green
paed · 1981
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
United States v. Shober green
paed · 1979
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
Commonwealth v. McCloskey green
pa · 1971
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F.Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F.Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F.Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has su

11991–1991
Raven v. Deukmejian green
cal · 1990
2 sentences

1991For example, the restriction on postindictment preliminary hearings seems directed toward our holding in Hawkins ...." ( 52 Cal.3d at p. 348 .) We therefore conclude that article I, section 14.1, as enacted by the voters of California, has abrogated the holding of Hawkins, supra, 22 Cal.3d 584 , such that an indicted defendant is no longer deemed denied the equal protection of the laws under article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, by virtue of the defendant's failure to receive a postindictment preliminary hearing.

1991For example, the restriction on postindictment preliminary hearings seems directed toward our holding in Hawkins . . . .” ( 52 Cal.3d at p. 348 .) We therefore conclude that article I, section 14.1, as enacted by the voters of California, has abrogated the holding of Hawkins, supra, 22 Cal.3d 584 , such that an indicted defendant is no longer deemed denied the equal protection of the laws under article I, section 7 of the California Constitution, by virtue of the defendant’s failure to receive a postindictment preliminary hearing.

11991–1991
State v. Reiman green
sd · 1979
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

11991–1991
Tapia v. Superior Court green
cal · 1991
2 sentences

1991(See also Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d, 160 , 820 P.2d 262 ] [challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 provisions permitting hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings]; Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [ 285 Cal. Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] [ Izazaga ; challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 reciprocal discovery provisions]; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] [challenge to retroactive application of Prop. 115]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 326 , 801

1991(See also Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063 [ 2 Cal. Rptr.2d, 160 , 820 P.2d 262 ] [challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 provisions permitting hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings]; Izazaga v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 356 [ 285 Cal. Rptr. 231 , 815 P.2d 304 ] [ Izazaga ; challenge to facial constitutionality of Prop. 115 reciprocal discovery provisions]; Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 [ 279 Cal. Rptr. 592 , 807 P.2d 434 ] [challenge to retroactive application of Prop. 115]; Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 [ 276 Cal. Rptr. 326 , 801

11991–1991
People v. Franklin green
illappct · 1979
2 sentences

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F. Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F. Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F. Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has

1991Kline v. Lane, supra, 707 F.Supp. 368 ; United States v. Simon, supra, 510 F.Supp. 232 ; State v. Clark, supra, 630 P.2d 810 ; State v. Robinson, supra, 417 A.2d 953 ; United States v. Shober, supra, 489 F.Supp. 393 ; People v. Franklin, supra, 398 N.E.2d 1071 ; Seim v. State, supra, 590 P.2d 1152 ; State v. Reiman, supra, 284 N.W.2d 860 ; Lataille v. District Court of Eastern Hampden, supra, 320 N.E.2d 877 ; Chung v. Ogata, supra, 495 P.2d 26 ; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, supra, 277 A.2d 764 .) We next consider whether a state constitutional right to a postindictment preliminary hearing has su

11991–1991
People v. Cook green
cal · 1978
2 sentences

1982In People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 67 , at page 99, footnote 18 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 583 P.2d 130 ], a judicial change in the law of search and seizure was held to apply only to searches conducted after the finality of the opinion due to official reliance upon former rules.

1982In People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 67 , at page 99, footnote 18 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 583 P.2d 130 ], a judicial change in the law of search and seizure was held to apply only to searches conducted after the finality of the opinion due to official reliance upon former rules.

11982–1982
Snell v. Ruppert green
wyo · 1978
11981–1981
Ballard v. Superior Court of San Diego County red
cal · 1966
11980–1980
People v. Superior Court (Persons) green
calctapp · 1976
11978–1978
People v. Duncan green
mich · 1972
11978–1978
People v. Gary W. green
cal · 1971
11975–1975
People v. Uhlemann green
cal · 1973
11975–1975
Coleman v. Alabama green
scotus · 1970
11975–1975

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 182 (9) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 995 (5) CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 1101 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 286 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 487 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 691 (3) CA § Cal. Penal Code § 917 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check