viable substantive defense in California

2023Mitchell had to prove “not necessarily just that [he] had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905 (Adair), quoting People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056 .) Instead of analyzing whether there was reasonable cause to arrest him, the People argue, the trial court analyzed Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 1 indicated. 1 potential defenses to the charges against him.

2023If the court finds that this showing of no reasonable cause has been made by the petitioner, then the burden of proof shall shift to the respondent to show that a reasonable cause exists to believe that the petitioner committed the offense for which the arrest was made.” The petitioner must at least show that “ ‘no objective factors justified official action[.]’ ” (Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 905 .) The petitioner must do more than point to the prosecution’s failure to go to trial or to convict. “ ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessa

2023Mitchell had to prove “not necessarily just that [he] had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905 (Adair), quoting People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056 .) Instead of analyzing whether there was reasonable cause to arrest him, the People argue, the trial court analyzed Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 1 indicated. 1 potential defenses to the charges against him.

2021Defendant was required to establish that “no reasonable cause exists to believe that he committed the offense.” (§ 851.8, subd. (b).) Stated slightly differently, “ ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the arrestee had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” (People v. Mazumder (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 732, 738-739 (Mazumder), quoting People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056 ; Bleich, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p.

2023If the court finds that this showing of no reasonable cause has been made by the petitioner, then the burden of proof shall shift to the respondent to show that a reasonable cause exists to believe that the petitioner committed the offense for which the arrest was made.” The petitioner must at least show that “ ‘no objective factors justified official action[.]’ ” (Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 905 .) The petitioner must do more than point to the prosecution’s failure to go to trial or to convict. “ ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessa

2013(Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1041 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 551 , 839 P.2d 1059 ].) When bringing a petition under section 851.8, the defendant has the initial burden of showing the converse—that there is no reasonable cause to believe he committed the offense. (§ 851.8, subd. (b); Laiwala, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 .) The magistrate may determine that the prosecution has fallen short of carrying its burden at the preliminary hearing, but that failure of proof does not mean that the defendant has automatically carried his initial burden of demonstrating his factual innoce

2009Hence, much more than a failure of the prosecution to convict is required in order to justify the sealing and destruction of records under section 851.8.’ [Citation.] ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the [defendant] had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 P.3d 45 ], fn. omitted, italics added (Adair).) “ ‘ “ ‘Reasonable cause’ ” ’

2009Hence, much more than a failure of the prosecution to convict is required in order to justify the sealing and destruction of records under section 851.8.’ [Citation.] ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the [defendant] had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 905 [ 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 P.3d 45 ], fn. omitted, italics added (Adair).) “ ‘ “ ‘Reasonable cause’ ” ’

2025In any court hearing to determine the factual innocence of a party, the initial burden of proof shall rest with the petitioner to show that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made.” “A petitioner’s burden to establish factual innocence has been described as ‘ “incredibly high” ’ and as requiring ‘ “no doubt whatsoever.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “Section 851.8 is for the benefit of those defendants who have not committed a crime.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necess

2021Defendant was required to establish that “no reasonable cause exists to believe that he committed the offense.” (§ 851.8, subd. (b).) Stated slightly differently, “ ‘Establishing factual innocence . . . entails establishing as a prima facie matter not necessarily just that the arrestee had a viable substantive defense to the crime charged, but more fundamentally that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.” (People v. Mazumder (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 732, 738-739 (Mazumder), quoting People v. Matthews (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1056 ; Bleich, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p.

2013(Id. at p. 904.) In determining whether probable cause exists at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate may “weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, and give or withhold credence to particular witnesses.” (Uhlemann, supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 667.) In cases where the facts presented by the prosecution do not establish probable cause to the magistrate’s satisfaction, based on that magistrate’s resolution of evidentiary conflicts or assessment of witness credibility, it still might be the case that another person of ordinary care and prudence could view the evidence differently and have some suspicio

2013(Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1041 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 551 , 839 P.2d 1059 ].) When bringing a petition under section 851.8, the defendant has the initial burden of showing the converse—that there is no reasonable cause to believe he committed the offense. (§ 851.8, subd. (b); Laiwala, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 .) The magistrate may determine that the prosecution has fallen short of carrying its burden at the preliminary hearing, but that failure of proof does not mean that the defendant has automatically carried his initial burden of demonstrating his factual innoce

2013(Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018, 1041 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 551 , 839 P.2d 1059 ].) When bringing a petition under section 851.8, the defendant has the initial burden of showing the converse—that there is no reasonable cause to believe he committed the offense. (§ 851.8, subd. (b); Laiwala, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068 .) The magistrate may determine that the prosecution has fallen short of carrying its burden at the preliminary hearing, but that failure of proof does not mean that the defendant has automatically carried his initial burden of demonstrating his factual innoce

2003(See ibid.; cf. People v. Glimps (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 315, 323-324 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 230 ] [cataloguing reasons for dismissal of charges that do not establish factual innocence].) Defendant contends the trial court’s credibility determinations and other resolutions of factual conflicts should be dispositive on appeal.

2003(See ibid.; cf. People v. Glimps (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 315, 323-324 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 230 ] [cataloguing reasons for dismissal of charges that do not establish factual innocence].) Defendant contends the trial court’s credibility determinations and other resolutions of factual conflicts should be dispositive on appeal.

1992For example, a legal defense which is unrelated to the conduct of the arrestee and his innocence, such as entrapment, may be available “not because the defendant is innocent but because it is a lesser evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part. [Citation.]” (People v. Pogre (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 590 ].) On the other hand, other legal defenses may be so related to the defendant’s own conduct that the existence of the defense negates a *1057 requisite element of the offense or otherwise eliminates culpability, thereby re

1992For example, a legal defense which is unrelated to the conduct of the arrestee and his innocence, such as entrapment, may be available “not because the defendant is innocent but because it is a lesser evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part. [Citation.]” (People v. Pogre (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7 [ 234 Cal.Rptr. 590 ].) On the other hand, other legal defenses may be so related to the defendant’s own conduct that the existence of the defense negates a *1057 requisite element of the offense or otherwise eliminates culpability, thereby re