Castiel v. Superior Court In and For City and County ofSan Francisco
| Decision Date | 12 August 1958 |
| Citation | 162 Cal.App.2d 710,328 P.2d 476 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Nathaniel CASTIEL, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. Civ. 18182. |
Harry P. Glassman, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Dist. Atty., Cecil Poole, Deputy Dist. Atty., San Francisco, for respondent.
Petitioner is the defendant in the case in which a previous judgment of conviction was reversed by this court in People v. Castiel, 153 Cal.App.2d 653, 315 P.2d 79. The conviction in that case was reversed on the sole ground that the defendant (petitioner herein) is entitled to the disclosure of the name of the informer who had been a participant in the crimes which petitioner was charged with committing. The Supreme Court denied a hearing in that appeal and our opinion has now become the law of the case, establishing that petitioner is entitled to the disclosure of the unidentified informer's name and cannot be legally convicted if that information is denied to him.
The case was set for a second trial. In advance of the trial the petitioner made a motion before the trial court that the court order the district attorney to disclose the name and present whereabouts of the informer. The court denied this motion and petitioner filed his petition for writ of mandate in this court.
It is conceded by counsel for the respondent that under our previous decision the identity of the informer must be disclosed at the time of trial if the petitioner is brought to trial again. Theirs is a delaying action only, designed to conceal from petitioner the information to which he is admittedly entitled to the last possible moment and thus to handicap him as much as possible in the preparation of his defense.
It is now well settled that in a proper case the disclosure of matters which are material and substantial to the preparation of an adequate defense may be compelled in advance of the trial. Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698; Walker v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 317 P.2d 130; Cordry v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 267, 326 P.2d 222. Herein it has become the law of the case by our previous decision that the disclosure of this informer's identity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemente v. State of California
...to criminal as well as civil matters (People v. Durbin (1966) 64 Cal.2d 474, 477 [50 Cal.Rptr. 657, 413 P.2d 433]; Castiel v. Superior Court (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 710 ), and to decisions of intermediate appellate courts as well as courts of last resort. 'Where a decision upon appeal has bee......
-
People v. Shuey
...criminal as well as civil matters (People v. Durbin (1966) 64 Cal.2d 474, 477, 50 Cal.Rptr. 657, 413 P.2d 433; Castiel v. Superior Court (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 710, 328 P.2d 476), and to decisions of intermediate appellate courts as well as courts of last resort. 'Where a decision upon appea......
-
People v. Van Houten
...to criminal as well as civil matters (People v. Durbin (1966) 64 Cal.2d 474, 50 Cal.Rptr. 657, 413 P.2d 433; Castiel v. Superior Court (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 710, 328 P.2d 476), and to decision of intermediate courts as well as courts of last resort. (United Dredging Co. v. Industrial Acc. C......
-
Tupper v. Superior Court of Marin County
...v. Superior Court, 155 Cal.App.2d 134, 317 P.2d 130; Cordry v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 267, 326 P.2d 222; Castiel v. Superior Court, 162 Cal.App.2d 710, 328 P.2d 476. This diversity of treatment in compelling the production of documents between the trial and pretrial stages is errone......