Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 California opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2023 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Uhlemanngreen2 sentences2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th 2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th | 3 | 3 |
People v. Slaughtergreen2 sentences2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su 2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su | 2 | 2 |
Stanton v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th 2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th | 1 | 2 |
People v. Toneygreen2 sentences2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su 2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su | 1 | 2 |
People v. DeJesusgreen2 sentences2001A magistrate at a preliminary hearing determines whether the prosecution's factual showing establishes probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony. "`"`An information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.'"' [Citations.] The test is a limited one: whether there is such a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. [Cit 2001A magistrate at a preliminary hearing determines whether the prosecution's factual showing establishes probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony. "`"`An information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.'"' [Citations.] The test is a limited one: whether there is such a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. [Cit | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1986It has been well established that the defendant at a preliminary hearing has the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses for the purpose of overcoming the prosecution's case or establishing an affirmative defense. (§ 866; Jones v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.3d 660, 667 ; People v. Jordan (1983) 142 Cal. App.3d 628, 634 [ 191 Cal. Rptr. 218 ].) (7) However, the defendant may not seek cross-examination or presentation of a witness for the sole and primary goal of obtaining discovery. ( Foster v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal. App.3d 218, 225 [ 165 Cal. Rptr. 701 ]; McDaniel v. Superior Co 1971He weighs evidence, resolves conflicts and gives or withholds credence to particular witnesses (Jones v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 660, 667 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 483 P.2d 1241 ]), and just as these are judicial acts, so is the act of holding a defendant to answer. | 1 | 2 |
Esteybar v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences1983As the court in People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho), supra, 11 Cal.3d at pages 66-67, observed, citing Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119, 127 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 524 , 485 P.2d 1140 ], “‘Within the statutory framework, the magistrate at a preliminary hearing acts as an independent arbiter of the issues presented by the adversaries. 1983As the court in People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho), supra, 11 Cal.3d at pages 66-67, observed, citing Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119, 127 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 524 , 485 P.2d 1140 ], “‘Within the statutory framework, the magistrate at a preliminary hearing acts as an independent arbiter of the issues presented by the adversaries. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.green2 sentences1974Code, §§ 806, 807; People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 78 [ 50 P. 20 ].) He is not a judge. “ . . . [A] judge who sits as a magistrate does not carry his court or his judicial attributes with him except to the extent that they inhere in the office of magistrate.” (Amos v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.2d 343, 348 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; see also People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666, 683-684 [ 72 P.2d 122 ]; People v. Superior Court (Scofield) 249 Cal.App.2d 727, 735 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 818 ].) The magistrate at a preliminary hearing on a felony complaint has no power to make inquiry into the guilt or innocence of th 1974Code, §§ 806, 807; People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 78 [ 50 P. 20 ].) He is not a judge. “ . . . [A] judge who sits as a magistrate does not carry his court or his judicial attributes with him except to the extent that they inhere in the office of magistrate.” (Amos v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.2d 343, 348 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; see also People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666, 683-684 [ 72 P.2d 122 ]; People v. Superior Court (Scofield) 249 Cal.App.2d 727, 735 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 818 ].) The magistrate at a preliminary hearing on a felony complaint has no power to make inquiry into the guilt or innocence of th | 1 | 2 |
People v. Cohengreen2 sentences1974Code, §§ 806, 807; People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 78 [ 50 P. 20 ].) He is not a judge. “ . . . [A] judge who sits as a magistrate does not carry his court or his judicial attributes with him except to the extent that they inhere in the office of magistrate.” (Amos v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.2d 343, 348 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; see also People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666, 683-684 [ 72 P.2d 122 ]; People v. Superior Court (Scofield) 249 Cal.App.2d 727, 735 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 818 ].) The magistrate at a preliminary hearing on a felony complaint has no power to make inquiry into the guilt or innocence of th 1974Code, §§ 806, 807; People v. Cohen, 118 Cal. 74, 78 [ 50 P. 20 ].) He is not a judge. “ . . . [A] judge who sits as a magistrate does not carry his court or his judicial attributes with him except to the extent that they inhere in the office of magistrate.” (Amos v. Superior Court, 182 Cal.App.2d 343, 348 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 252 ]; see also People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666, 683-684 [ 72 P.2d 122 ]; People v. Superior Court (Scofield) 249 Cal.App.2d 727, 735 [ 57 Cal.Rptr. 818 ].) The magistrate at a preliminary hearing on a felony complaint has no power to make inquiry into the guilt or innocence of th | 1 | 2 |
People v. ARJONgreen2 sentences2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th 2016A. General Principles and Standard of Review The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is “sufficient cause” to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).) “ ‘[Sjufficient cause’ ” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause’ ” or “a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” (People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) “ ‘The purpose of a motion to set aside th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bautista CA4/3green2 sentences2016(People v. Bautista (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1101 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 719 ].) B. 2016(People v. Bautista (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1101 [ 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 719 ].) B. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Plumleegreen2 sentences2011To the extent the magistrate’s decision rests upon factual findings, ‘[w]e, like the superior court, must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the magistrate’s ruling and cannot substitute our judgment, on the credibility or weight of the evidence, for that of the magistrate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Massey (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ].) “We review the magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo, but are bound by any factual findings the magistrate made if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Plumlee (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 935, 939 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 2011To the extent the magistrate’s decision rests upon factual findings, ‘[w]e, like the superior court, must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the magistrate’s ruling and cannot substitute our judgment, on the credibility or weight of the evidence, for that of the magistrate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Massey (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ].) “We review the magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo, but are bound by any factual findings the magistrate made if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Plumlee (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 935, 939 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Masseygreen2 sentences2011To the extent the magistrate’s decision rests upon factual findings, ‘[w]e, like the superior court, must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the magistrate’s ruling and cannot substitute our judgment, on the credibility or weight of the evidence, for that of the magistrate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Massey (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ].) “We review the magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo, but are bound by any factual findings the magistrate made if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Plumlee (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 935, 939 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 2011To the extent the magistrate’s decision rests upon factual findings, ‘[w]e, like the superior court, must draw every legitimate inference in favor of the magistrate’s ruling and cannot substitute our judgment, on the credibility or weight of the evidence, for that of the magistrate.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Massey (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 204, 210 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 890 ].) “We review the magistrate’s legal conclusions de novo, but are bound by any factual findings the magistrate made if they are supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Plumlee (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 935, 939 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Rosalesgreen2 sentences2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su 2011(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 633 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].)” (People v. Rosales (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 325, 329 [ 259 Cal.Rptr. 503 ].) The only ground for a motion for reinstatement of a complaint is that “as a matter of law, the magistrate erroneously dismissed the action or a portion thereof.” (§ 871.5, subd. (b).) “In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the su | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mardiangreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [prejudice required to reverse for preliminary hearing irregularities]; People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 37 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [“Any errors "made by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing in failing to fully consider a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence may be cured by a subsequent, correct determination of the issue in the superior court.”].) We question whether a correct ruling on a renewed motion to suppress will always cure error in the prior ruling on the motion to set aside. 2010(See People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [prejudice required to reverse for preliminary hearing irregularities]; People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 37 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [“Any errors "made by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing in failing to fully consider a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence may be cured by a subsequent, correct determination of the issue in the superior court.”].) We question whether a correct ruling on a renewed motion to suppress will always cure error in the prior ruling on the motion to set aside. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pompa-Ortizgreen2 sentences2010(See People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [prejudice required to reverse for preliminary hearing irregularities]; People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 37 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [“Any errors "made by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing in failing to fully consider a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence may be cured by a subsequent, correct determination of the issue in the superior court.”].) We question whether a correct ruling on a renewed motion to suppress will always cure error in the prior ruling on the motion to set aside. 2010(See People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ] [prejudice required to reverse for preliminary hearing irregularities]; People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 37 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 269 ] [“Any errors "made by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing in failing to fully consider a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence may be cured by a subsequent, correct determination of the issue in the superior court.”].) We question whether a correct ruling on a renewed motion to suppress will always cure error in the prior ruling on the motion to set aside. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Matelskigreen2 sentences2004In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion (People v. Matelski (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 837, 844-846 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 ]; Vlick v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 992, 998-999 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 742 ]) based on “the record of the proceedings before the magistrate” (§ 871.5, subd. (c)). 2004In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion (People v. Matelski (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 837, 844-846 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 ]; Vlick v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 992, 998-999 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 742 ]) based on “the record of the proceedings before the magistrate” (§ 871.5, subd. (c)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Statumgreen2 sentences2004In light of defendant's express stipulation as to the factual basis of his plea and his acknowledgment that his offenses constituted strikes, the trial court was not free to look beyond defendants no contest plea, which was "`tantamount' to a `finding'" of culpability for the prior offense ( People v. Statum, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 688, fn. 2 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 572 , 50 P.3d 355 ), nor could the trial court properly give dispositive weight to the magistrates evaluation of the evidence at some earlier period in the prior proceeding. *105 In addition, we believe that by relying upon the magistra 2004In light of defendant's express stipulation as to the factual basis of his plea and his acknowledgment that his offenses constituted strikes, the trial court was not free to look beyond defendants no contest plea, which was "`tantamount' to a `finding'" of culpability for the prior offense ( People v. Statum, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 688, fn. 2 , 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 572 , 50 P.3d 355 ), nor could the trial court properly give dispositive weight to the magistrates evaluation of the evidence at some earlier period in the prior proceeding. *105 In addition, we believe that by relying upon the magistra | 1 | 1 |
Vlick v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2004In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion (People v. Matelski (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 837, 844-846 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 ]; Vlick v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 992, 998-999 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 742 ]) based on “the record of the proceedings before the magistrate” (§ 871.5, subd. (c)). 2004In determining whether to compel reinstatement of a complaint dismissed after the granting of a defendant’s suppression motion by the magistrate at a preliminary hearing, the superior court reviews the legal soundness of the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion (People v. Matelski (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 837, 844-846 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 543 ]; Vlick v. Superior Court (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 992, 998-999 [ 180 Cal.Rptr. 742 ]) based on “the record of the proceedings before the magistrate” (§ 871.5, subd. (c)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Campagreen2 sentences1999(Compare People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 879 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 114 , 686 P.2d 634 ] [“ ‘In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a . . . warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, . . . namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously to entertain, a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ”] with People v. Dejesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 15 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 ] [The role of a magistrate at 1999(Compare People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 879 [ 206 Cal.Rptr. 114 , 686 P.2d 634 ] [“ ‘In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a . . . warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, . . . namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously to entertain, a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ”] with People v. Dejesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 15 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 796 ] [The role of a magistrate at | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1992(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].) The burden that this standard places on the prosecution at the preliminary hearing is “quite distinct from that necessary to obtain a conviction before a judge or jury.” {Id. at p. 637.) To satisfy the standard of sufficient or probable cause, the evidence “need not be sufficient to support a conviction.” (Williams v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1144, 1147 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 747 , 458 P.2d 987 ], italics added; accord, People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) By equat 1992(People v. Slaughter (1984) 35 Cal.3d 629, 636 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 448 , 677 P.2d 854 ].) The burden that this standard places on the prosecution at the preliminary hearing is “quite distinct from that necessary to obtain a conviction before a judge or jury.” {Id. at p. 637.) To satisfy the standard of sufficient or probable cause, the evidence “need not be sufficient to support a conviction.” (Williams v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1144, 1147 [ 80 Cal.Rptr. 747 , 458 P.2d 987 ], italics added; accord, People v. Uhlemann (1973) 9 Cal.3d 662, 667 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 511 P.2d 609 ].) By equat | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bloydgreen2 sentences1992(People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 346 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 368 , 729 P.2d 802 ].) This standard of proof differs significantly from the standard used by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing. 1992(People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 346 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 368 , 729 P.2d 802 ].) This standard of proof differs significantly from the standard used by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Jordangreen | 1 | 1 |
| McDaniel v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Brighamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Howardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Nealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Britegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amos v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Moragreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Prewittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Ramirez & Villarreal
green
2 sentences2021DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “On appeal following the denial of a [Penal Code] section 995 motion, we review the preliminary hearing magistrate’s determination directly and disregard the judge’s [Penal Code] section 995 ruling.” (People v. Ramirez (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 800, 813 .) “The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is ‘sufficient cause’ to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. ([Pen. 2020DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review “The function of the magistrate at a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is ‘sufficient cause’ to believe defendant is guilty of the charged offense. (§§ 871, 872, subd. (a).)” (People v. Ramirez (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 800, 813 .) “Sufficient cause” equates to “ ‘reasonable and probable cause.’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘Evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. [Citations.] “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspic | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Schlick v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2002The Schlick court concluded the Legislature’s explicit language regarding rulings by magistrates at preliminary hearings, and its failure to include such language regarding rulings by the superior court, indicated “the omission was deliberate.” (Schlick v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 315 .) The court noted that, at the time the prior Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (j) was enacted, the “Legislature reasonably could have concluded that a superior court’s ruling, following a special hearing convened for the limited purpose of resolving the suppression issues, [was] entitled to 2002In Schlick v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th 310, the Supreme Court held the prosecution was bound by a superior court’s ruling after an arraignment, *1272 even though the action was subsequently dismissed and refiled by the People, reasoning that the broad language in subdivision (d) stated the property or evidence suppressed shall “not be admissible against the movant at any trial or other hearing unless further proceedings authorized by this section [or other specified review procedures] are utilized by the people,” and the only further proceedings authorized by section 1538.5 when the mo | 2 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Mower
green
1 sentence2023Under section 995, a court must dismiss an information if a defendant has been committed without reasonable or probable cause to believe they are guilty of the charged crime. (§ 995, subd. (a)(2)(B); People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 473 .) A section 995 motion reviews the sufficiency of the information based on the record before a magistrate at a preliminary hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Barnes v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2002Even though such distinction is made by the statutes, as we have already noted, the rules to be applied are the same.” (Barnes, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 642 .) We agree and add that the reasons for the Legislature to prohibit forum shopping apply to magistrates just as forcefully as to other judges. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Salazar v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2001A magistrate at a preliminary hearing determines whether the prosecution's factual showing establishes probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony. "`"`An information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.'"' [Citations.] The test is a limited one: whether there is such a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. [Cit 2001A magistrate at a preliminary hearing determines whether the prosecution's factual showing establishes probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony. "`"`An information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.'"' [Citations.] The test is a limited one: whether there is such a state of facts as would lead a person of ordinary caution or prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. [Cit | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Howard L. Haupt v. T.D. Dillard, Robert Leonard Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department City of Las Vegas, Nevada and Clark County, Nevada
green
1 sentence1999(Haupt v. Dillard, supra, 17 F.3d at p. 289 .) With respect to the full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue element of collateral estoppel, federal courts applying collateral estoppel in this sitúa-„ tian focus on whether the state preliminary hearing in a criminal case provides sufficient procedural opportunities and motivation for the accused to litigate the issue of probable cause. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ghent v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1988(Ghent v. Su *1022 perior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 944 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) We approved Ghent in Ramos v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 26 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 648 P.2d 589 ], and extended its reasoning to the dismissal of special circumstance allegations by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 871. 1988(Ghent v. Su *1022 perior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 944 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) We approved Ghent in Ramos v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 26 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 648 P.2d 589 ], and extended its reasoning to the dismissal of special circumstance allegations by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 871. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Ramos v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1988(Ghent v. Su *1022 perior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 944 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) We approved Ghent in Ramos v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 26 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 648 P.2d 589 ], and extended its reasoning to the dismissal of special circumstance allegations by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 871. 1988(Ghent v. Su *1022 perior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 944 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 720 ].) We approved Ghent in Ramos v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 26 [ 184 Cal.Rptr. 622 , 648 P.2d 589 ], and extended its reasoning to the dismissal of special circumstance allegations by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing pursuant to section 871. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Shadwick v. City of Tampa green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Sanchez green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Jennings v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Standard Radio & Television Co. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| People v. Foster green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.