veracity claim in California

2023(People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299 .) 24 We likewise conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks about the public defender’s office and defense counsel’s role were not “so inflammatory as to distract the jury from a thorough and reasoned evaluation of the evidence.” (Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 61 .) It was the defense theory and the veracity of defense witnesses (testifying or not) that was the principal focus of the prosecutor’s criticism.

2023(People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299 .) 24 We likewise conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks about the public defender’s office and defense counsel’s role were not “so inflammatory as to distract the jury from a thorough and reasoned evaluation of the evidence.” (Hawthorne, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 61 .) It was the defense theory and the veracity of defense witnesses (testifying or not) that was the principal focus of the prosecutor’s criticism.

2014“Prior rape complaints do not reflect on credibility unless proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 .) “The trial court has discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of prior reports of sexual assault if proof of the falsity of the prior complaint ‘would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand.’” (Ibid., quoting People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , fn. omitted.) The circumstances of this case are analogous to those in Tidwell, supra. Facing charges of kidnapping and rape, the defend

2014“Prior rape complaints do not reflect on credibility unless proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 .) “The trial court has discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of prior reports of sexual assault if proof of the falsity of the prior complaint ‘would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand.’” (Ibid., quoting People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , fn. omitted.) The circumstances of this case are analogous to those in Tidwell, supra. Facing charges of kidnapping and rape, the defend

2014“Prior rape complaints do not reflect on credibility unless proven to be false.” (People v. Miranda (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424 .) “The trial court has discretion under Evidence Code section 352 to exclude evidence of prior reports of sexual assault if proof of the falsity of the prior complaint ‘would consume considerable time, and divert the attention of the jury from the case at hand.’” (Ibid., quoting People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1097 , fn. omitted.) The circumstances of this case are analogous to those in Tidwell, supra. Facing charges of kidnapping and rape, the defend

2014(Moffat v. Moffat (1980) 27 Cal.3d 645, 656-657 .) And they apply squarely to this case, barring Southwick’s attempts to relitigate legal or factual issues already finally decided by this court, including issues regarding any purported due process right to a veracity hearing on Crownover’s allegations against him.

2014(People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 946 .) In a prosecution for unlawful sexual behavior, the impeachment value of a complaining witness’s prior rape allegation depends upon the veracity of her claim.

2001As to each item, the court must evaluate petitioner’s “ ‘necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice,’ ” assessing “the importance of the material sought to the fair presentation of the litigant’s case, the availability of the material to the litigant by other means, and the effectiveness and relative difficulty of such other means.” (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 126 .) Stating the obvious, material which is exculpatory as to petitioner would necessarily have great importance to “the fair presentation of [his] case.” As the court explained in People v. Superior Co

2001As to each item, the court must evaluate petitioner’s “ ‘necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice,’ ” assessing “the importance of the material sought to the fair presentation of the litigant’s case, the availability of the material to the litigant by other means, and the effectiveness and relative difficulty of such other means.” (Shepherd v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 126 .) Stating the obvious, material which is exculpatory as to petitioner would necessarily have great importance to “the fair presentation of [his] case.” As the court explained in People v. Superior Co

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court's denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court's order requiring disclosure of informant's identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a "valuable" alternative to protect informant's identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whet

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court’s denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court’s order requiring disclosure of informant’s identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a “valuable” alternative to protect informant’s identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whethe

1990For example, in State v. Casal, supra, 699 P.2d at page 1238 , the court recognized that a defendant faced with a warrant affidavit relying on a confidential informant was unable to make a Franks ( supra, 438 U.S. 154 ) "substantial preliminary showing." The court held that in such a case, a veracity hearing was justified on a somewhat lesser showing of inaccuracy or inconsistency, but that in order to protect the informant's identity, the hearing should be held in *20 camera.

1990For example, in State v. Casal, supra, 699 P.2d at page 1238 , the court recognized that a defendant faced with a warrant affidavit relying on a confidential informant was unable to make a Franks (supra, 438 U.S. 154 ) “substantial preliminary showing.” The court held that in such a case, a veracity hearing was justified on a somewhat lesser showing of inaccuracy or inconsistency, but that in order to protect the informant’s identity, the hearing should be held in camera.

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court's denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court's order requiring disclosure of informant's identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a "valuable" alternative to protect informant's identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whet

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court's denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court's order requiring disclosure of informant's identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a "valuable" alternative to protect informant's identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whet

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal. Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court's denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court's order requiring disclosure of informant's identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a "valuable" alternative to protect informant's identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whet

1990(See also People v. Brown (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1541 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 11 ] [affirming trial court’s denial of open evidentiary hearing following in camera examination of confidential informants]; People v. Dailey (Colo. 1982) 639 P.2d 1068, 1077, fn. 11 [affirming trial court’s order requiring disclosure of informant’s identity, but approving use of in camera hearings as a “valuable” alternative to protect informant’s identity]; Commonwealth v. Douzanis (1981) 384 Mass. 434 [ 425 N.E.2d 326, 328, fn. 4 ] [recommending in camera disclosure of certain information to court for determination whethe

1990For example, in State v. Casal, supra, 699 P.2d at page 1238 , the court recognized that a defendant faced with a warrant affidavit relying on a confidential informant was unable to make a Franks ( supra, 438 U.S. 154 ) "substantial preliminary showing." The court held that in such a case, a veracity hearing was justified on a somewhat lesser showing of inaccuracy or inconsistency, but that in order to protect the informant's identity, the hearing should be held in *20 camera.

1990The requirement of a substantial preliminary showing should suffice to prevent the misuse óf a veracity hearing for purposes of discovery or obstruction.” (Id., at p. 170 [ 57 L.Ed.2d at p. 681 ].) The search warrant affidavit at issue in Franks differed from that in the present case in a crucial respect: it relied not on information from a confidential informant, but on statements attributed to two named sources, whom the defendant had been able to contact.

1990For example, in People v. Lucente, supra, 506 N.E.2d 1269 , the Illinois Supreme Court approved the holding of an evidentiary hearing, based on the defendant's preliminary showing of alibi which pointed to some inaccuracy in the affidavit but did not establish that the inaccuracy originated in misstatements by the affiant rather than lies by the informant.

1990For example, in People v. Lucente, supra, 506 N.E.2d 1269 , the Illinois Supreme Court approved the holding of an evidentiary hearing, based on the defendant’s preliminary showing of alibi which pointed to some inaccuracy in the affidavit but did not establish that the inaccuracy originated in misstatements by the affiant rather than lies by the informant.

1974(People v. Mijares, 6 Cal.3d 415 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 139 , 491 P.2d 1115 ].) 5 The facts that the officers had no prior knowledge that defendant was in any way connected to the location, that there were others present at the location, and that defendant was under the influence of heroin all lend plausibility to the theory that the informant’s testimony might assist defendant with respect to the charged offense of possession for sale.

1974(People v. Mijares, 6 Cal.3d 415 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 139 , 491 P.2d 1115 ].) 5 The facts that the officers had no prior knowledge that defendant was in any way connected to the location, that there were others present at the location, and that defendant was under the influence of heroin all lend plausibility to the theory that the informant’s testimony might assist defendant with respect to the charged offense of possession for sale.

1974(People v.Borunda, 11 Cal.3d 523, 527 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 522 P.2d 1 ]; Honore v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Garcia, 67 Cal.2d 830, 839-840 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ].) To this end he must be able to articulate a theory of defense as to which the informant’s evidence would be relevant (People v. Sewell, 3 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 895 ]), but in “weighing the defendant’s need, the court was not to pass upon the veracity of his claim, but only to ascertain if a reasonable possibility existed that the requested informat

1974(People v.Borunda, 11 Cal.3d 523, 527 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 522 P.2d 1 ]; Honore v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 449 P.2d 169 ]; People v. Garcia, 67 Cal.2d 830, 839-840 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 110 , 434 P.2d 366 ].) To this end he must be able to articulate a theory of defense as to which the informant’s evidence would be relevant (People v. Sewell, 3 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1039 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 895 ]), but in “weighing the defendant’s need, the court was not to pass upon the veracity of his claim, but only to ascertain if a reasonable possibility existed that the requested informat