McDaniel v. Superior Court
| Citation | 126 Cal.Rptr. 136,55 Cal.App.3d 803 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1976 |
| Parties | Derek A. McDANIEL and Michael James Eubanks, Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent; The PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 14742. |
Savitz & Welles, and Richard E. Savitz, San Diego, for petitioner Derek A. McDaniel.
McInerney, Milchen & Frank, and Robert E. May, San Diego, for petitioner Michael James Eubanks.
Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., Peter C. Lehman and Henry R. Mann, Deputy Dist. Attys., for real party in interest.
Defendants Derek A. McDaniel and Michael James Eubanks petition for a writ of prohibition (Pen.Code § 999a) following denial of their motions to set aside an information. Defendants concede there is ample evidence to bind them over on the charge they committed an attempted robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon and did use a firearm (Pen.Code §§ 664, 211 and 12022.5). Their contention is they were unduly restricted in their examination of a witness at their preliminary examination (Jennings v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.2d 867, 59 Cal.Rptr. 440, 428 P.2d 304). We agree.
We need not detail the evidence showing defendants' robbery of a patron in a massage parlor was interrupted by two police officers (one of whom was retired) who, while passing the parlor, saw what was happening and intervened.
Officer Carlson, the active member of the pair who witnessed the robbery attempt, was designated by the prosecution as the investigative officer when the defense moved to exclude witnesses at defendants' preliminary hearing. The People did not call Officer Carlson to the stand, however.
After the People rested, the defense called Carlson as a witness. The People objected to questions concerning what Carlson had seen, done and heard on the ground defendants were merely seeking discovery and were not attempting to establish an affirmative defense. While early in the examination some objections were overruled, the court later restricted questioning and finally cut off the examination on the ground the defense was not entitled to discovery at the preliminary examination.
Jennings v. Superior Court, supra, 66 Cal.2d 867, 880, 59 Cal.Rptr. 440, 428 P.2d 304, holds a defendant at a preliminary hearing must be permitted, if he chooses, to elicit testimony or introduce evidence tending to overcome the prosecution's case or establish an affirmative defense. It is not a valid objection that examination of a witness may lead to the discovery of what the facts were. That is the very purpose of examining a witness. If the questioning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivera-Puig v. Garcia-Rosario
...when he feels that sufficient evidence has been presented. See Velez-Pumarejo, 113 P.R.Dec. 349; McDaniel v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 55 Cal.App.3d 803, 126 Cal.Rptr. 136 (1976). (11) Evidence rules are followed substantially in both jurisdictions. Rule 23; People v. Esteves-Rosa......
-
Nollins v. Superior Court (People)
...by both sides. (Hawkins v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 588, 150 Cal.Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916; McDaniel v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 803, 805, 126 Cal.Rptr. 136.) The amendment to Penal Code section 866 enacted by the initiative states, "The examination shall not be used ......
-
Montez v. Superior Court (People)
...728 P.2d 211; Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 588-590, 150 Cal.Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916; McDaniel v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 803, 805, 126 Cal.Rptr. 136.) Without exhaustively listing all of the changes, the following are the most significant modifications effecte......
-
Peviani v. Arbors at Cal. Oaks Prop. Owner, LLC.
...the trial court's ruling, the court fails to consider that it can control the presentation of evidence ( McDaniel v. Superior Court (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 803, 805, 126 Cal.Rptr. 136 ), and if there is a point where the evidence is cumulative on the issue of reasonableness, then the trial cou......