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.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–1979 0 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. Sanchezgreen2 sentences1975(People v. Sanchez, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 689 ; People v. Neal, 53 Cal.App.2d 379, 383 [ 127 P.2d 996 ], cited with approval in Jennings v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880-881 .) Whatever error may have been committed by the magistrate in refusing to receive evidence on the issue of the affidavit’s accuracy at the preliminaiy hearing was cured by the superior court’s correct determination of that issue in a full 1538.5 hearing on March 3, 1974. 1975(People v. Sanchez, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 689 ; People v. Neal, 53 Cal.App.2d 379, 383 [ 127 P.2d 996 ], cited with approval in Jennings v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880-881 .) Whatever error may have been committed by the magistrate in refusing to receive evidence on the issue of the affidavit’s accuracy at the preliminaiy hearing was cured by the superior court’s correct determination of that issue in a full 1538.5 hearing on March 3, 1974. | 1 | 2 |
Jennings v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979(See Jones v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 660, 668 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 483 P.2d 1241 ]; Jennings v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 428 P.2d 304 ].) If a defendant charged with welfare fraud elects to present evidence at the preliminaiy hearing that no demand for restitution was made upon him or her and the issue is tried at the preliminary hearing, it may well be that the issue could properly be presented by a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. 4 Even under those circumstances, however, the nonstatutory motion procedure would still ap 1979(See Jones v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 660, 668 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 483 P.2d 1241 ]; Jennings v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 428 P.2d 304 ].) If a defendant charged with welfare fraud elects to present evidence at the preliminaiy hearing that no demand for restitution was made upon him or her and the issue is tried at the preliminary hearing, it may well be that the issue could properly be presented by a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. 4 Even under those circumstances, however, the nonstatutory motion procedure would still ap | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gaynorgreen2 sentences1979(People v. Gaynor (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 575, 579-580 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 219 ].) Since defendant did not testify at the preliminaiy hearing, section 866.5 is simply inapplicable. 1979(People v. Gaynor (1963) 223 Cal.App.2d 575, 579-580 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 219 ].) Since defendant did not testify at the preliminaiy hearing, section 866.5 is simply inapplicable. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ketchelgreen2 sentences1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i 1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dickinsongreen2 sentences1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i 1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979(See Jones v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 660, 668 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 483 P.2d 1241 ]; Jennings v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 428 P.2d 304 ].) If a defendant charged with welfare fraud elects to present evidence at the preliminaiy hearing that no demand for restitution was made upon him or her and the issue is tried at the preliminary hearing, it may well be that the issue could properly be presented by a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. 4 Even under those circumstances, however, the nonstatutory motion procedure would still ap 1979(See Jones v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 660, 668 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 289 , 483 P.2d 1241 ]; Jennings v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880 [ 59 Cal.Rptr. 440 , 428 P.2d 304 ].) If a defendant charged with welfare fraud elects to present evidence at the preliminaiy hearing that no demand for restitution was made upon him or her and the issue is tried at the preliminary hearing, it may well be that the issue could properly be presented by a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995. 4 Even under those circumstances, however, the nonstatutory motion procedure would still ap | 1 | 1 |
People v. Van Eykgreen2 sentences1979(People v. Mora (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 896, 899 [ 293 P.2d 522 ].) This holding was expressly disapproved in People v. Van Eyk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 471, 477 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 150 , 364 P.2d 326 ]; there the court held that res judicata does not apply in the proceedings prior to trial. 5 *999 Prior to the 1967 adoption of Penal Code section 1538.5, search and seizure issues in a felony case were raised by objection at the preliminaiy hearing in a motion under Penal Code section 995, and by objection to the introduction of evidence at trial. 1979(People v. Mora (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 896, 899 [ 293 P.2d 522 ].) This holding was expressly disapproved in People v. Van Eyk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 471, 477 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 150 , 364 P.2d 326 ]; there the court held that res judicata does not apply in the proceedings prior to trial. 5 *999 Prior to the 1967 adoption of Penal Code section 1538.5, search and seizure issues in a felony case were raised by objection at the preliminaiy hearing in a motion under Penal Code section 995, and by objection to the introduction of evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moragreen1 sentence1979(People v. Mora (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 896, 899 [ 293 P.2d 522 ].) This holding was expressly disapproved in People v. Van Eyk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 471, 477 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 150 , 364 P.2d 326 ]; there the court held that res judicata does not apply in the proceedings prior to trial. 5 *999 Prior to the 1967 adoption of Penal Code section 1538.5, search and seizure issues in a felony case were raised by objection at the preliminaiy hearing in a motion under Penal Code section 995, and by objection to the introduction of evidence at trial. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Martingreen2 sentences1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v 1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v | 1 | 1 |
Rideout v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i 1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v 1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v | 1 | 1 |
People v. Heardgreen2 sentences1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v 1979Code, § 1538.5, subd. (f)), that the magistrate’s ruling on the suppression motion may be reviewed on a motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 (see Smith v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 731, 733 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 109 ]; People v. Sanchez, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 690, fn. 15 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ] [disapproved on another point in People v. Martin, 9 Cal.3d 687, 695, fn. 8 ( 108 Cal.Rptr. 809 , 511 P.2d 1161 )]) and that upon such review the superior court is bound by the factual determinations of the magistrate if they are supported by substantial evidence (see People v | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i 1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1978Appellant now contends that the denial was erroneous, apparently relying upon language to that effect in the concurring opinion in Johnson v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 248, 255 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 32 , 539 P.2d 792 ], However, the holding of the majority in Johnson did not alter the established rule that a preliminaiy hearing is not required where the defendant has been indicted. 1978Appellant now contends that the denial was erroneous, apparently relying upon language to that effect in the concurring opinion in Johnson v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 248, 255 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 32 , 539 P.2d 792 ], However, the holding of the majority in Johnson did not alter the established rule that a preliminaiy hearing is not required where the defendant has been indicted. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Superior Court (Persons)green2 sentences1978(People v. Superior Court (Persons) (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 191, 193-194 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 314 ].) As a concurring opinion does not constitute authority under the doctrine of stare decisis (id., at p. 194), the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for preliminary hearing. 1978(People v. Superior Court (Persons) (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 191, 193-194 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 314 ].) As a concurring opinion does not constitute authority under the doctrine of stare decisis (id., at p. 194), the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Uhlemanngreen1 sentence1977(Ashe v. Swenson (1970) [supra] 397 U.S. 436 , 445 ....)’ Since a defendant is not placed in jeopardy at the preliminaiy hearing (United States v. Levy, 268 U.S. 390 , 393 [ 69 L.Ed. 1010, 1011 , 45 S.Ct. 516 ]; Ex parte Fenton, supra, 11 Cal. 183, 184; 1 Witkin, supra, § 189, p. 182), the Fifth Amendment does not serve as a proper basis for barring further prosecution in this case.” (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 668, fn. 4.) (1b) For similar reasons, the magistrate’s determination as to insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminaiy hearing to establish probable cause does not e | 1 | 1 |
People v. Greengreen2 sentences1976(People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998 ] (Green II).) In People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 451 P.2d 422 ] (Green I), section 1235 was held unconstitutional as applied to admission at trial of prior inconsistent statements elicited at the preliminaiy hearing. 1976(People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998 ] (Green II).) In People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 451 P.2d 422 ] (Green I), section 1235 was held unconstitutional as applied to admission at trial of prior inconsistent statements elicited at the preliminaiy hearing. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nealgreen2 sentences1975(People v. Sanchez, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 689 ; People v. Neal, 53 Cal.App.2d 379, 383 [ 127 P.2d 996 ], cited with approval in Jennings v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880-881 .) Whatever error may have been committed by the magistrate in refusing to receive evidence on the issue of the affidavit’s accuracy at the preliminaiy hearing was cured by the superior court’s correct determination of that issue in a full 1538.5 hearing on March 3, 1974. 1975(People v. Sanchez, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 689 ; People v. Neal, 53 Cal.App.2d 379, 383 [ 127 P.2d 996 ], cited with approval in Jennings v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880-881 .) Whatever error may have been committed by the magistrate in refusing to receive evidence on the issue of the affidavit’s accuracy at the preliminaiy hearing was cured by the superior court’s correct determination of that issue in a full 1538.5 hearing on March 3, 1974. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Brown
green
2 sentences1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i 1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Rideout v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1979Evidence at a preliminaiy hearing to establish “reasonable or probable cause” to justify a defendant’s prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction. “ ‘Probable cause is shown if a man of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.’ ” (People v. Ketchel (1963) 59 Cal.2d 503, 532 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 538 , 381 P.2d 394 ]; Jackson v. Superior Court (1965) 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 838 , 399 P.2d 374 ].) Thus, “[a]n information will not be set aside or a prosecution thereon prohibited if there i | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Mora
green
1 sentence1979(People v. Mora (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 896, 899 [ 293 P.2d 522 ].) This holding was expressly disapproved in People v. Van Eyk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 471, 477 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 150 , 364 P.2d 326 ]; there the court held that res judicata does not apply in the proceedings prior to trial. 5 *999 Prior to the 1967 adoption of Penal Code section 1538.5, search and seizure issues in a felony case were raised by objection at the preliminaiy hearing in a motion under Penal Code section 995, and by objection to the introduction of evidence at trial. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Chambers v. Municipal Court
green
1 sentence1978(Chambers v. Municipal Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 809, 812-813 ....) The statute being valid, the writ must issue.” The court stated at page 228: “However, assuming arguendo that the procedure followed by respondent court satisfies the minimum requirements of due process, it is not our province to invalidate legislation on the ground that an alternative procedure would conserve judicial resources.” The Attorney General contends that “[t]he trial court did not err in denying petitioner’s 995 motion as there is no evidence in this record that petitioner was unable to stand trial at the time of t | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Co.
green
1 sentence1977(Ashe v. Swenson (1970) [supra] 397 U.S. 436 , 445 ....)’ Since a defendant is not placed in jeopardy at the preliminaiy hearing (United States v. Levy, 268 U.S. 390 , 393 [ 69 L.Ed. 1010, 1011 , 45 S.Ct. 516 ]; Ex parte Fenton, supra, 11 Cal. 183, 184; 1 Witkin, supra, § 189, p. 182), the Fifth Amendment does not serve as a proper basis for barring further prosecution in this case.” (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 668, fn. 4.) (1b) For similar reasons, the magistrate’s determination as to insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminaiy hearing to establish probable cause does not e | 1 | 1977–1977 |
United States Ex Rel. Rutz v. Levy
green
2 sentences1977(Ashe v. Swenson (1970) [supra] 397 U.S. 436 , 445 ....)’ Since a defendant is not placed in jeopardy at the preliminaiy hearing (United States v. Levy, 268 U.S. 390 , 393 [ 69 L.Ed. 1010, 1011 , 45 S.Ct. 516 ]; Ex parte Fenton, supra, 11 Cal. 183, 184; 1 Witkin, supra, § 189, p. 182), the Fifth Amendment does not serve as a proper basis for barring further prosecution in this case.” (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 668, fn. 4.) (1b) For similar reasons, the magistrate’s determination as to insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminaiy hearing to establish probable cause does not e 1977(Ashe v. Swenson (1970) [supra] 397 U.S. 436 , 445 ....)’ Since a defendant is not placed in jeopardy at the preliminaiy hearing (United States v. Levy, 268 U.S. 390 , 393 [ 69 L.Ed. 1010, 1011 , 45 S.Ct. 516 ]; Ex parte Fenton, supra, 11 Cal. 183, 184; 1 Witkin, supra, § 189, p. 182), the Fifth Amendment does not serve as a proper basis for barring further prosecution in this case.” (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 668, fn. 4.) (1b) For similar reasons, the magistrate’s determination as to insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminaiy hearing to establish probable cause does not e | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
1 sentence1977(Ashe v. Swenson (1970) [supra] 397 U.S. 436 , 445 ....)’ Since a defendant is not placed in jeopardy at the preliminaiy hearing (United States v. Levy, 268 U.S. 390 , 393 [ 69 L.Ed. 1010, 1011 , 45 S.Ct. 516 ]; Ex parte Fenton, supra, 11 Cal. 183, 184; 1 Witkin, supra, § 189, p. 182), the Fifth Amendment does not serve as a proper basis for barring further prosecution in this case.” (People v. Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d 662, 668, fn. 4.) (1b) For similar reasons, the magistrate’s determination as to insufficiency of the evidence at the preliminaiy hearing to establish probable cause does not e | 1 | 1977–1977 |
People v. Manning
green
2 sentences1976As this court observed in People v. Manning, 33 Cal.App.3d 586 , at page 594 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 531 ], Penal Code section 1538.5 “. . . was calculated to provide an orderly and complete scheme for pretrial determination of suppression motions and for appellate review of rulings on those motions. 1976As this court observed in People v. Manning, 33 Cal.App.3d 586 , at page 594 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 531 ], Penal Code section 1538.5 “. . . was calculated to provide an orderly and complete scheme for pretrial determination of suppression motions and for appellate review of rulings on those motions. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Green
green
2 sentences1976(People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998 ] (Green II).) In People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 451 P.2d 422 ] (Green I), section 1235 was held unconstitutional as applied to admission at trial of prior inconsistent statements elicited at the preliminaiy hearing. 1976(People v. Green (1971) 3 Cal.3d 981, 985 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 494 , 479 P.2d 998 ] (Green II).) In People v. Green (1969) 70 Cal.2d 654 [ 75 Cal.Rptr. 782 , 451 P.2d 422 ] (Green I), section 1235 was held unconstitutional as applied to admission at trial of prior inconsistent statements elicited at the preliminaiy hearing. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Belknap
green
2 sentences1976The issue presented here is whether the superior court loses jurisdiction to entertain the motion if for any reason the motion is not made within 10 days after the preliminaiy hearing. *209 In People v. Belknap, 41 Cal.App.3d 1019 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 664 ], the Court of Appeal determined that the People could not avoid the binding effect of a magistrate’s order suppressing evidence by the device of dismissing the information and starting afresh after unsuccessfully moving under subdivision (j) in the superior court. 1976The issue presented here is whether the superior court loses jurisdiction to entertain the motion if for any reason the motion is not made within 10 days after the preliminaiy hearing. *209 In People v. Belknap, 41 Cal.App.3d 1019 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 664 ], the Court of Appeal determined that the People could not avoid the binding effect of a magistrate’s order suppressing evidence by the device of dismissing the information and starting afresh after unsuccessfully moving under subdivision (j) in the superior court. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences1976Green I was vacated in California v. Green (1970) 399 U.S. 149 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 489 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 ], The high court held that admission of a *667 witness’ prior inconsistent statement to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein does not violate the confrontation clause provided (1) the statement was made by the declarant in testifying at the preliminary hearing, or (2) the declarant testifies at trial. (399 U.S. at pp. 158-159, 165 [26 L.Ed.2d at pp. 497-498, 501]; People v. Green, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 985 .) Morris’ prior inconsistent statements not having been made while testifying at 1976Green I was vacated in California v. Green (1970) 399 U.S. 149 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 489 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 ], The high court held that admission of a *667 witness’ prior inconsistent statement to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein does not violate the confrontation clause provided (1) the statement was made by the declarant in testifying at the preliminary hearing, or (2) the declarant testifies at trial. (399 U.S. at pp. 158-159, 165 [26 L.Ed.2d at pp. 497-498, 501]; People v. Green, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 985 .) Morris’ prior inconsistent statements not having been made while testifying at | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Burrows v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1975In December of 1974, after the preliminary hearing but before the hearing in the trial court on the motion to suppress, the California Supreme Court decided Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 529 P.2d 590 ]. 1975In December of 1974, after the preliminary hearing but before the hearing in the trial court on the motion to suppress, the California Supreme Court decided Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238 [ 118 Cal.Rptr. 166 , 529 P.2d 590 ]. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.