failure to follow rule in California

1993To hold otherwise merely places form over substance and contributes to a ‘make-work’ slowdown in the courts. [1|] As an officer of the court, defense counsel has an obligation to assist the court in avoiding errors which merely squander court time and in no way constitute an exercise of his [or her] client’s right to a fair trial. [^] Although we hold that the failure to follow rule 439(d) constituted error, under the particular circumstances of this case, resentencing is not mandated.” ( 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 905 .) Earlier, in People v. White (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 270, 279 [ 172 Cal.Rptr. 612

1993To hold otherwise merely places form over substance and contributes to a `make-work' slowdown in the courts. [¶] As an officer of the court, defense counsel has an obligation to assist the court in avoiding errors which merely squander court time and in no way constitute an exercise of his [or her] client's right to a fair trial. [¶] Although we hold that the failure to follow rule 439(d) *Page 1122 constituted error, under the particular circumstances of this case, resentencing is not mandated." ( 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 905 .) Earlier, in People v. White (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 270 , 279 [ 172 Ca

2015The prosecution need not negate all possibility of tampering. ( Riser, supra, 47 Cal.2d at pp. 580-581.) The jury was capable of determining what weight to give the testimony about the gaps in the chain of custody.

2001(Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 [ 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ].) Rule 984.2 is a nonconstitutional rule of procedure. “[T]he fact that a particular procedure might enhance reliability does not make it one that is constitutionally mandated.” (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 664 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 , 937 P.2d 213 ].) Improper procedures in the use of an interpreter do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation unless they result in prejudice demonstrating defendant was denied his right to a fair trial.

2001(Medina v. California (1992) 505 U.S. 437 [ 112 S.Ct. 2572 , 120 L.Ed.2d 353 ].) Rule 984.2 is a nonconstitutional rule of procedure. “[T]he fact that a particular procedure might enhance reliability does not make it one that is constitutionally mandated.” (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 664 [ 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 , 937 P.2d 213 ].) Improper procedures in the use of an interpreter do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation unless they result in prejudice demonstrating defendant was denied his right to a fair trial.

1974(Cf. Light v. State Bar (1939) 14 Cal.2d 328, 331-332 [ 94 P.2d 35 ], wherein the State Bar failed to accord notice as provided by statute; McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 709 [ 187 P.2d 116 ], wherein the board failed to provide notice of a continuance of hearings.) No such prejudice appears here.

1974(Cf. Light v. State Bar (1939) 14 Cal.2d 328, 331-332 [ 94 P.2d 35 ], wherein the State Bar failed to accord notice as provided by statute; McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 709 [ 187 P.2d 116 ], wherein the board failed to provide notice of a continuance of hearings.) No such prejudice appears here.

1974(See Hannah v. Larche (1960) 363 U.S. 420 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 , 80 S.Ct. 1502 ].) Hence, relief from the deleterious effect, if any, of the Commission’s failure to follow rule 904(b) may be secured by petitioner only upon a showing of actual prejudice.

1974(See Hannah v. Larche (1960) 363 U.S. 420 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 , 80 S.Ct. 1502 ].) Hence, relief from the deleterious effect, if any, of the Commission’s failure to follow rule 904(b) may be secured by petitioner only upon a showing of actual prejudice.