Pretrial Evidentiary Motions
Category > Pretrial Evidentiary Motions
A defendant can appeal the denial of an Evans lineup even if he does not seek writ review of the denial. When the trial court denies a defendant’s motion for a physical lineup and the defendant does not seek writ review of that ruling, the defendant is not barred from raising the issue on postjudgment appeal.id: 22726
Court's local practice requiring all motions be filed 30 days before trial was invalid.The trial court's practice of requiring that all motions be filed and heard 30 days before trial was invalid because it was not properly promulgated in accordance with statute or with the California Rules of Court. The policy was similarly suspect to the extent the court was not making individualized assessments of the needs and complexities of each case before setting dates for hearing motions.id: 18806
Failure to seek writ relief following an adverse ruling on a motion for a pretrial lineup waives the claim of error.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his motion for a pretrial lineup under Evans v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 617. However, the requirement of timely pursuit of a lineup includes timely review of an adverse ruling by writ proceedings, and failure to pursue writ relief waives the claim of error. Moreover, any error in denying the motion for a lineup was harmless since defendant was convicted despite the witness’s testimony that he did not recognize defendant as one of his attackers.id: 20978
The charging discretion provided to the prosecutor by Prop 21 does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.Defendant argued that Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subd.(d) as amended by Proposition 21 violates the separation of powers doctrine because it transfers from the judiciary to the prosecution the authority to determine whether certain minors should be tried in the criminal system or whether they are fit and proper subjects for juvenile court treatment. However, the fact that a prosecutor's decision to file charges against a minor in criminal court limits the sentencing choices does not unconstitutionally interfere with the judicial function since the prosecutor's discretion is exercised before the court exercises any jurisdiction over the case.id: 16579
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245