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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1971–1983 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. Nationgreen2 sentences1983(Id. , at p. 653, fn. 7.) *223 The People contend that the prosecution need only employ reasonable methods to preserve evidence, citing People v. Nation, supra, 26 Cal.3d at page 175 . 1981Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 642, 652 , had stated: “‘Negligent failure to comply with the required procedures will provide no excuse.’” (12 Cal.3d, p. 652.) In the more recent case of People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169, 175 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ], the high court, speaking of similar evidence, tersely restated the People v. Hitch rule as directing “that in the future law enforcement agencies take reasonable measures to ensure its adequate preservation.” (Italics added.) The record indicates to us that the police authorities in good faith and without negligence complied with People v. | 2 | 3 |
Van Halen v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences1980Finally we hold that in such latter event due process shall not require a dismissal of the action but shall require merely that the results of the breathalyzer test be excluded from evidence.” (Id., at pp. 652-653, fns. omitted; italics in original.) *454 In discussing the appropriate sanctions, the Hitch court went on to state: “‘If the evidence of the breathalyzer test is excluded, there is no reason why the People may not, if they desire, go forward with whatever other proof may be available.’ [Quoting from Van Halen v. Municipal Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 233, 238 ( 82 Cal.Rptr. 140 ).] Ind 1974Finally we hold that in such latter event 6 due process shall not require a dismissal of the action but shall require merely that the results of the breathalyzer test be excluded from evidence. 7 As pointed out in Van Halen v. Municipal Court (1969) 3 Cal.App.3d 233, 238 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 140 ]: “Evidence of a breathalyzer or other chemical test is not a necessary element of a prosecution for drunk driving. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner
green
2 sentences1981Cir.1971) 439 F.2d 642, 652 , had stated: "`Negligent failure to comply with the required procedures will provide no excuse.'" (12 Cal.3d, p. 652.) In the more recent case of People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169, 175 [ 161 Cal. Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ], the high court, speaking of similar evidence, tersely restated the People v. Hitch rule as directing "that in the future law enforcement agencies take reasonable measures to ensure its adequate preservation." (Italics added.) The record indicates to us that the police authorities in good faith and without negligence complied with People v. 1981Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 642, 652 , had stated: “‘Negligent failure to comply with the required procedures will provide no excuse.’” (12 Cal.3d, p. 652.) In the more recent case of People v. Nation (1980) 26 Cal.3d 169, 175 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 299 , 604 P.2d 1051 ], the high court, speaking of similar evidence, tersely restated the People v. Hitch rule as directing “that in the future law enforcement agencies take reasonable measures to ensure its adequate preservation.” (Italics added.) The record indicates to us that the police authorities in good faith and without negligence complied with People v. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
People v. Hitch
green
2 sentences1983Finally, we hold that in such latter event due process shall not require a dismissal of the action but shall require merely that the results of the breathalyzer test be excluded from evidence.” (People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 653 , fns. omitted, original italics.) We also suggested that the bad faith destruction of material evidence may well require dismissal as the appropriate sanction. 1983(People v. Hitch, supra, 12 Cal.3d 641, 650 .) “If the prosecution meets its burden and makes the required showing, then the results of the breathalyzer test shall be admissible in evidence, even though the ampoules and their contents have been lost. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Eleazer v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1971The duty of the prosecution to preserve evidence for trial was established by the California Supreme Court in, Eleazer v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 847 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 464 P.2d 42 ], in which it squarely faced the issue of the prosecution’s duty to locate a police informer with whom the police had lost contact. 1971The duty of the prosecution to preserve evidence for trial was established by the California Supreme Court in, Eleazer v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 847 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 586 , 464 P.2d 42 ], in which it squarely faced the issue of the prosecution’s duty to locate a police informer with whom the police had lost contact. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.