Skip to content
Name: Hudson v. Superior Court
Case #: E065645
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/24/2017

Prosecution for offering a false instrument (Pen. Code, § 115) precluded where more specific statute (Govt. Code, § 87203) applies to defendant's act of filing a statement of economic interest form that did not fully disclose her property interests. Hudson was the secretary of the board of directors for the Palo Verde Healthcare District. Among other offenses, a grand jury indicted Hudson for five felony counts of offering a false instrument (Pen. Code, § 115) for failing to list her husband's property on an annual economic interest form (Form 700). Hudson moved to dismiss the indictment on various grounds, including…

View Full Summary
Name: Breceda et al. v. Superior Court
Case #: B244574
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/25/2013

Exculpatory documents that are available in the district attorney's office must be provided to a grand jury under Penal Code section 939.71 even if the district attorney handling the case has no personal knowledge of the documents. The prosecution obtained a grand jury indictment of petitioners, officials of Irwindale, for embezzlement of city funds. Petitioners had participated in lavish junkets to New York City, which were ultimately paid for by the city. In argument to the grand jury, the prosecution focused on evidence that the petitioners claimed and received a $75 daily allotment for travel expenses they did…

View Full Summary
Name: McGill v. Superior Court (Orange County)
Case #: G043778
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/31/2011

A person subject to indictment by a grand jury must be afforded certain protections: the prosecution cannot bring the charge of perjury before the same jury that heard the questioned testimony because they already have a "state of mind in reference to the case;" the alleged perjuror is entitled to notice of the right to bring exculpatory evidence to the attention of the grand jury; and, the prosecutor's instructions to the jury must focus on the elements of materiality and knowledge of falsity. McGill was the first witness who was examined by the grand jury about a charge of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antillia
Case #: G041453
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/11/2009

The constructive filing doctrine of In re Benoit (1973) 10 Cal.3d 72 applies to a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition under Penal Code section 1405 subdivision (j), which authorizes DNA testing. Penal Code section 1405 allows an incarcerated felon to make a motion for DNA testing. Under subdivision (j), review of a ruling on such a motion is by writ of mandate/prohibition with a specified 20-day filing requirement commencing from the date of the ruling. In this case, the appellate court extended the constructive filing doctrine of Benoit to section 1405, subdivision (j), finding that the rationale underlying Benoit (to…

View Full Summary
Name: Hemingway v. Superior Court
Case #: G033896
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/30/2004

A defendant’s motion to disqualify a judge cannot be denied as untimely based on the court’s own invalid assignment of the case to itself. Prior to arraignment, the defendant appeared in court without counsel twice before the same judge; the court continued arraignment to allow the defendant to obtain counsel, and assigned the case to itself for all purposes. After counsel was appointed and a preliminary hearing was held, the court arraigned the defendant on the information and again assigned the case to itself for all purposes. Counsel subsequently moved under California Code of Civil Procedure section…

View Full Summary