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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2019–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bagleyred2 sentences2019This right is independent of ... the criminal discovery statutes." ( Bridgeforth v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1074 , 1081, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ( Bridgeforth ).) This obligation of disclosure includes impeachment evidence regarding prosecution witnesses. ( Id. at p. 1083, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 , citing United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667 , 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 , 490.) The trial prosecutor argued in the trial court that the late disclosure did not violate defendant's constitutional rights because the outcome of the preliminary hearing was not affected. 2019This right is independent of ... the criminal discovery statutes." ( Bridgeforth v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1074 , 1081, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ( Bridgeforth ).) This obligation of disclosure includes impeachment evidence regarding prosecution witnesses. ( Id. at p. 1083, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 , citing United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667 , 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 , 490.) The trial prosecutor argued in the trial court that the late disclosure did not violate defendant's constitutional rights because the outcome of the preliminary hearing was not affected. | 1 | 2 |
Stanton v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2026A criminal defendant’s “right is substantial when denial of the right results in a denial of due process.” (Avitia v. Superior Court (2018) 6 Cal.5th 486, 494 (Avitia); see also Molina v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 291 , 305.) “[D]enial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination renders the ensuing commitment illegal and entitles a defendant to dismissal of the information on timely motion. [Citations.]” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 523 .) But “outside a narrow category of errors that ‘by their nature constitute a denial of a substantial right’ and hence r | 1 | 1 |
People v. Pompa-Ortizgreen1 sentence2026A criminal defendant’s “right is substantial when denial of the right results in a denial of due process.” (Avitia v. Superior Court (2018) 6 Cal.5th 486, 494 (Avitia); see also Molina v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 291 , 305.) “[D]enial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination renders the ensuing commitment illegal and entitles a defendant to dismissal of the information on timely motion. [Citations.]” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 523 .) But “outside a narrow category of errors that ‘by their nature constitute a denial of a substantial right’ and hence r | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gamachegreen1 sentence2026(Avitia, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 497 ; see People v. Pennington (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 959, 961 [no denial of a substantial right at a preliminary hearing where a potential conflict of interest existed], cited with approval by People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 882 ; cf. People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 396 [“structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis are those that go to the very construction of the trial mechanism—a biased judge, total absence of counsel, the failure of a jury to reach any verdict on an essential element”].) Accordingly, to obtain dismissal of | 1 | 1 |
People v. Penningtongreen1 sentence2026(Avitia, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 497 ; see People v. Pennington (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 959, 961 [no denial of a substantial right at a preliminary hearing where a potential conflict of interest existed], cited with approval by People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 882 ; cf. People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 396 [“structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis are those that go to the very construction of the trial mechanism—a biased judge, total absence of counsel, the failure of a jury to reach any verdict on an essential element”].) Accordingly, to obtain dismissal of | 1 | 1 |
Avitia v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cnty.green2 sentences2026(Avitia, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 497 ; see People v. Pennington (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 959, 961 [no denial of a substantial right at a preliminary hearing where a potential conflict of interest existed], cited with approval by People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 882 ; cf. People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 396 [“structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis are those that go to the very construction of the trial mechanism—a biased judge, total absence of counsel, the failure of a jury to reach any verdict on an essential element”].) Accordingly, to obtain dismissal of 2026A criminal defendant’s “right is substantial when denial of the right results in a denial of due process.” (Avitia v. Superior Court (2018) 6 Cal.5th 486, 494 (Avitia); see also Molina v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 291 , 305.) “[D]enial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination renders the ensuing commitment illegal and entitles a defendant to dismissal of the information on timely motion. [Citations.]” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 523 .) But “outside a narrow category of errors that ‘by their nature constitute a denial of a substantial right’ and hence r | 1 | 1 |
Merrill v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2026A criminal defendant’s “right is substantial when denial of the right results in a denial of due process.” (Avitia v. Superior Court (2018) 6 Cal.5th 486, 494 (Avitia); see also Molina v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 291 , 305.) “[D]enial of a substantial right at the preliminary examination renders the ensuing commitment illegal and entitles a defendant to dismissal of the information on timely motion. [Citations.]” (People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 523 .) But “outside a narrow category of errors that ‘by their nature constitute a denial of a substantial right’ and hence r | 1 | 1 |
People v. Standishgreen1 sentence2026(Avitia, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 497 ; see People v. Pennington (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 959, 961 [no denial of a substantial right at a preliminary hearing where a potential conflict of interest existed], cited with approval by People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 882 ; cf. People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 396 [“structural errors not susceptible to harmless error analysis are those that go to the very construction of the trial mechanism—a biased judge, total absence of counsel, the failure of a jury to reach any verdict on an essential element”].) Accordingly, to obtain dismissal of | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen1 sentence2024Due process guarantees under the federal Constitution imposing a duty on the state to preserve “evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.” (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 488 ; see also Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 .) Such evidence “ ‘must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.’ ” (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 837 (Montes).) Rather than establi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Montesgreen1 sentence2024Due process guarantees under the federal Constitution imposing a duty on the state to preserve “evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.” (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 488 ; see also Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 .) Such evidence “ ‘must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.’ ” (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 837 (Montes).) Rather than establi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Trombetta
green
1 sentence2024Due process guarantees under the federal Constitution imposing a duty on the state to preserve “evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect’s defense.” (California v. Trombetta (1984) 467 U.S. 479, 488 ; see also Arizona v. Youngblood (1988) 488 U.S. 51 .) Such evidence “ ‘must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means.’ ” (People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 837 (Montes).) Rather than establi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Berardi v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024Failing to provide Molina an individual interpreter reasonably might have affected the outcome of the preliminary hearing As stated above, “a defendant bringing a pretrial challenge to an information on the basis that he or she was not ‘ “legally committed” ’ by a magistrate, need only show that the error ‘ “reasonably might have affected the outcome” ’ and need not show ‘it is reasonably probable he or she would not have been held to answer in the absence of the error.’ [Citation.]” (Berardi v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 476, 493 .) Utilizing the aforementioned standard, based on t | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Konow
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, such an error “reasonably might have affected the outcome.” (Konow, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1024 .) The Attorney General mainly relies on Rodriguez for the proposition that failing to provide an individual interpreter for Molina was harmless. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bridgeforth v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2019This right is independent of ... the criminal discovery statutes." ( Bridgeforth v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1074 , 1081, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ( Bridgeforth ).) This obligation of disclosure includes impeachment evidence regarding prosecution witnesses. ( Id. at p. 1083, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 , citing United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667 , 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 , 490.) The trial prosecutor argued in the trial court that the late disclosure did not violate defendant's constitutional rights because the outcome of the preliminary hearing was not affected. 2019This right is independent of ... the criminal discovery statutes." ( Bridgeforth v. Superior Court (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1074 , 1081, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 ( Bridgeforth ).) This obligation of disclosure includes impeachment evidence regarding prosecution witnesses. ( Id. at p. 1083, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 528 , citing United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667 , 676, 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 3380, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 , 490.) The trial prosecutor argued in the trial court that the late disclosure did not violate defendant's constitutional rights because the outcome of the preliminary hearing was not affected. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.