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.
24 California opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2026 6 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. Moocgreen2 sentences2022The record of the in camera Pitchess hearing shows that the trial court was “the locus of [the] decisionmaking.” ( Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1228– 1229.) 12. 2021(See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 [to permit “meaningful appellate review,” the trial court must make a record of the documents examined by photocopying them, making a list of them, or stating on the record what documents it reviewed]; People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410 , 415- 416 [conditionally reversing and remanding for a new Pitchess hearing in part because 3 the custodian of records did not provide either the complete personnel file or a summary of the documents that were not presented for the court’s review].) Accordingly, our review is limited to the sealed | 3 | 6 |
People v. Wycoffgreen2 sentences2021(See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 [to permit “meaningful appellate review,” the trial court must make a record of the documents examined by photocopying them, making a list of them, or stating on the record what documents it reviewed]; People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410 , 415- 416 [conditionally reversing and remanding for a new Pitchess hearing in part because 3 the custodian of records did not provide either the complete personnel file or a summary of the documents that were not presented for the court’s review].) Accordingly, our review is limited to the sealed 2013(People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1232 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ]; People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410, 414-415 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 907 ].) After having independently reviewed the sealed reporter’s transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing, we find no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Stanleygreen1 sentence2026(See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [“ ‘If no[ legal argument with citation of authorities] is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ ”]; People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 1006, fn. 17 [noting that an appellate court may “ ‘decline to consider any factual assertion unsupported by record citation at the point where it is asserted[,]’ ” and that “ ‘[a]n appellate court “will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them” ’ ”].) DISCUSSION Santos raises two questions on appeal: (1) Did the trial court err in d | 1 | 1 |
People v. Flintgreen1 sentence2026(See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [“ ‘If no[ legal argument with citation of authorities] is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ ”]; People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 1006, fn. 17 [noting that an appellate court may “ ‘decline to consider any factual assertion unsupported by record citation at the point where it is asserted[,]’ ” and that “ ‘[a]n appellate court “will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them” ’ ”].) DISCUSSION Santos raises two questions on appeal: (1) Did the trial court err in d | 1 | 1 |
City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences2014First, Evidence Code section 1045 simply requires that an in camera Pitchess hearing must be had “in conformity with” Evidence Code section 915, “ ‘i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present ....’” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1038 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 63 P.3d 228 ] (Alford); City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83 .) We observed in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ] (Mooc): “[T]o protect the officer’s privacy, th 2014First, Evidence Code section 1045 simply requires that an in camera Pitchess hearing must be had ―in conformity with‖ Evidence Code section 915, ― ‗i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present . . . .‘ ‖ (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1038 (Alford); see City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83 .) 15 We observed in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Mooc): ―[T]o protect the officer‘s privacy, the examination of documents and questioning of the custodian shou | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2014First, Evidence Code section 1045 simply requires that an in camera Pitchess hearing must be had “in conformity with” Evidence Code section 915, “ ‘i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present ....’” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1038 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 63 P.3d 228 ] (Alford); City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83 .) We observed in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ] (Mooc): “[T]o protect the officer’s privacy, th 2014First, Evidence Code section 1045 simply requires that an in camera Pitchess hearing must be had “in conformity with” Evidence Code section 915, “ ‘i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present ....’” (Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1038 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672 , 63 P.3d 228 ] (Alford); City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 83 .) We observed in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ] (Mooc): “[T]o protect the officer’s privacy, th | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wyattgreen1 sentence2013In addition, he asks that we independently review the 1 Penal Code "[s]ection 273ab defines the offense of child abuse homicide." (People v. Wyatt (2010) 48 Cal.4th 776, 780 (Wyatt).) 2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. material considered by the trial court at an in camera Pitchess hearing.3 For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Lucido v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2011A. Collateral Estoppel Appellant maintains that the trial court’s ruling at the probation revocation hearing collaterally estopped his second trial. 5 As explained below, this contention fails under the public policy exception to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as elaborated in Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 342-343 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 ] (Lucido). 1. 2011A. Collateral Estoppel Appellant maintains that the trial court’s ruling at the probation revocation hearing collaterally estopped his second trial. 5 As explained below, this contention fails under the public policy exception to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as elaborated in Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 342-343 [ 272 Cal.Rptr. 767 , 795 P.2d 1223 ] (Lucido). 1. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Samuelsgreen2 sentences2008(People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 110 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 , 113 P.3d 1125 ] [standard of review].) The sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing is part of the appellate record. 2008(People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 110 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 , 113 P.3d 1125 ] [standard of review].) The sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing is part of the appellate record. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Roldangreen2 sentences2007Nor did the unitary jury so “skew” the balancing process that defendant was deprived of his right under the Eighth Amendment to have the jury fairly consider his evidence in mitigation. 26 On October 17, 2001, we denied defendant’s motion to unseal the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing. 27 Defendant suggests that his trial counsel’s presence at the in camera hearing, along with the opportunity to examine witnesses, might have elicited exculpatory evidence, otherwise supported his defense in the present case, or given rise to unknown constitutional claims of error, but this claim fin 2007Nor did the unitary jury so “skew” the balancing process that defendant was deprived of his right under the Eighth Amendment to have the jury fairly consider his evidence in mitigation. 26 On October 17, 2001, we denied defendant’s motion to unseal the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing. 27 Defendant suggests that his trial counsel’s presence at the in camera hearing, along with the opportunity to examine witnesses, might have elicited exculpatory evidence, otherwise supported his defense in the present case, or given rise to unknown constitutional claims of error, but this claim fin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pitchess v. Superior Court
red
2 sentences2024Code, § 11370.1)1 is unconstitutional; and (3) we should review the court’s in camera Pitchess hearing (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess)). 2023Pitchess Motion Defendant asks this court to review the documents from the in camera Pitchess hearing to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion 1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 . 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. for discovery. | 9 | 2013–2024 |
People v. Gaines
green
2 sentences2016(Mooc, at p. 1231; People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172 , 180–181.) Contrary to the People’s assertion that Williams failed to furnish a sufficient record on appeal, Williams’s appellate counsel properly attempted to augment the record with the sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing and the documents reviewed by the trial court at that hearing. 2016(Mooc, at p. 1231; People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172 , 180–181.) Contrary to the People’s assertion that Williams failed to furnish a sufficient record on appeal, Williams’s appellate counsel properly attempted to augment the record with the sealed transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing and the documents reviewed by the trial court at that hearing. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Wende
green
2 sentences2013Counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 identifying no issues but requesting the court independently review the record for errors in connection with the in camera Pitchess hearing. ( Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531 .) Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. 2013Counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 identifying no issues but requesting the court independently review the record for errors in connection with the in camera Pitchess hearing. ( Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531 .) Defendant did not file a supplemental brief. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 .) Based on our independent, in camera review of the sealed record, which includes the in camera Pitchess hearing transcript and any documents presented at the Pitchess hearing on January 24, 2017, we conclude the trial court properly conducted a Pitchess hearing, and there are no documents that constitute relevant discoverable Pitchess material. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Fuiava
green
2 sentences2014Significantly, the court asked no questions of Greene regarding such matters or sought to determine whether any responsive documents were withheld.5 Upon remand, the court should make such inquiries to an appropriate custodian of records.6 5 In People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622 , a sworn custodian of records produced a single potentially responsive document to the court during an in camera Pitchess hearing. 2014The Supreme Court held that the failure to make that inquiry was not reversible error in part because the in camera Pitchess hearing in that case predated the court’s “guidance in Mooc concerning what steps ought to be taken to ensure an ideal record.” (People v. Fuiava, supra, at p. 648 .) The court expressly declined to “address whether a failure to require that a custodian of records state for the record what documents were deemed nonresponsive, occurring after our decision in Mooc, would constitute reversible error.” (Id. at p. 648, fn. 6.) In the present case, we, too, need not decide tha | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Kelly
green
1 sentence2013(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 , 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 .) We also examined the sealed reporter’s transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing, at which the custodian of records for the Santa Monica Police Department stated under oath that there were no complaints against the officer in question. 2 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Woodson v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2007(Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, 428 U.S. 280 .) | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2007Nor did the unitary jury so “skew” the balancing process that defendant was deprived of his right under the Eighth Amendment to have the jury fairly consider his evidence in mitigation. 26 On October 17, 2001, we denied defendant’s motion to unseal the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing. 27 Defendant suggests that his trial counsel’s presence at the in camera hearing, along with the opportunity to examine witnesses, might have elicited exculpatory evidence, otherwise supported his defense in the present case, or given rise to unknown constitutional claims of error, but this claim fin | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hicks v. Oklahoma
green
1 sentence2007Nor did the unitary jury so “skew” the balancing process that defendant was deprived of his right under the Eighth Amendment to have the jury fairly consider his evidence in mitigation. 26 On October 17, 2001, we denied defendant’s motion to unseal the transcript of the in camera Pitchess hearing. 27 Defendant suggests that his trial counsel’s presence at the in camera hearing, along with the opportunity to examine witnesses, might have elicited exculpatory evidence, otherwise supported his defense in the present case, or given rise to unknown constitutional claims of error, but this claim fin | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.