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 2010–2025 3 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. Watsongreen2 sentences2016Law Penal Code section 1054.1, subdivision (f) requires the prosecution to disclose “[r]elevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial, including any reports or statements of experts made in conjunction with the case.” “‘Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered or obtained within 30 days of trial. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] [¶] Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statu 2015“Section 1054.1 . . . ‘ . . . requires the prosecution to disclose to the defense . . . certain categories of evidence “in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or [known by] the prosecuting attorney . . . to be in the possession of the investigating agencies.” ’ [Citation.] Evidence subject to disclosure includes . . . ‘[a]ll relevant real evidence seized or obtained as a part of the investigation of the offenses charged’ [citation] . . . . ‘Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered or obtained within 30 days of trial. | 4 | 10 |
People v. Zambranored2 sentences2010"Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered or obtained within 30 days of trial. (ง 1054.7.)" ( Zambrano, at p. 1133.) Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court "may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions" of the statute, "including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order." (ง 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may al 2010"Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered or obtained within 30 days of trial. (ง 1054.7.)" ( Zambrano, at p. 1133.) Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court "may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions" of the statute, "including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order." (ง 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may al | 2 | 2 |
People v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2014(See, e.g., People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 306-310 ; People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 484, fn. 6 .) The court’s ruling on discovery sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. | 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. Verdugo
green
2 sentences2025Governing law Section 1054.1 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defense certain categories of evidence, including the “names and 19 addresses of persons the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial,” the “existence of a felony conviction of any material witness,” and the “[r]elevant written or recorded statements of witnesses or reports of the statements of witnesses.” (Id., subds. (a), (d) & (f).) “ ‘Absent good cause, such evidence must be disclosed at least 30 days before trial, or immediately if discovered . . . within 30 days of trial. (§ 1054.7.)’ ” (People v. Verdugo (2 2025(See People v. Hughes (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 257 , 280; Roland v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 154, 160 .) “Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court ‘may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions’ of the statute, ‘including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order.’ (§ 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may also ‘advise the jury of any failure or refusal to disclose and of any un | 10 | 2014–2025 |
People v. Ayala
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal 2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal | 4 | 2019–2025 |
People v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal 2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal 2025(People v. Thompson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1043, 1105 ; People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 299 .) Even where the prosecution fails to comply with its discovery obligations, “[a] violation of section 1054.1 is subject to the harmless-error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [].” (People v. Verdugo, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 280 .) To demonstrate reversible error, the defendant “ ‘must establish that “ ‘there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceedings would have been different.’ ” ’ ” (People v. Gonzal | 2 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Hughes (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 257 , 280; Roland v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 154, 160 .) “Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court ‘may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions’ of the statute, ‘including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order.’ (§ 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may also ‘advise the jury of any failure or refusal to disclose and of any un | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Roland v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2025(See People v. Hughes (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 257 , 280; Roland v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 154, 160 .) “Upon a showing both that the defense complied with the informal discovery procedures provided by the statute, and that the prosecutor has not complied with section 1054.1, a trial court ‘may make any order necessary to enforce the provisions’ of the statute, ‘including, but not limited to, immediate disclosure, . . . continuance of the matter, or any other lawful order.’ (§ 1054.5, subd. (b).) The court may also ‘advise the jury of any failure or refusal to disclose and of any un | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Riggs
green
1 sentence2014(See, e.g., People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 306-310 ; People v. Thomas (2011) 51 Cal.4th 449, 484, fn. 6 .) The court’s ruling on discovery sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.