Trial court must generally grant the People’s request for a continuance on a suppression motion hearing that is made within the speedy trial period if the challenged evidence would require dismissal of the case. On the day of the suppression hearing, the arresting officer alerted the prosecutor of a schedule conflict. The prosecutor unilaterally excused the officer’s attendance and orally requested a brief continuance on the grounds that the officer’s testimony was critical and that Brown would suffer no prejudice because she was out of custody and had waived her speedy trial rights. The trial court initially denied the request, but reconsidered and held a new suppression hearing. It denied the suppression motion after considering testimony from both Brown and the arresting officer. Brown appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed. Held: Reversed. The California Supreme Court agreed with the holding in People v. Ferrer (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 873, that “a trial court abuses its discretion when it declines such a request to continue a suppression hearing if a dismissal of the underlying case is reasonably foreseeable.” The California Supreme Court, however, offered its own statutory analysis and noted a line of cases, which limited a court’s ability to deny a continuance when such a denial would foreseeably result in dismissal of the case. It then recognized that “[w]hen time remains to bring the matter to trial, and thus to hear the defendant’s motion to suppress, it typically does not further justice for the court to force a dismissal and forestall a legitimate prosecution conducted in compliance with the speedy trial statutes.” Rather, when a prosecutor fails to comply with the requirements in Penal Code section 1050, a trial court still retains the discretion to impose fines, refer the prosecutor for discipline, or impose other applicable sanctions.

Justice Groban authored a concurring/dissenting opinion.