Vance v. Superior Court of San Diego County
| Decision Date | 24 October 1958 |
| Citation | 330 P.2d 773,51 Cal.2d 92 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | William E. VANCE, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY et al., Respondents. L. A. 25125. |
John F. O'Laughlin, San Diego, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and James J. Biggins, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., San Diego, for respondents.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to require respondents to order the District Attorney of San Diego County to permit him to inspect and hear certain electronic transcriptions in the possession of the district attorney.
Petitioner was charged by an indictment with violation of section 288 of the Penal Code () and was arraigned in the Superior Court of San Diego County on May 16, 1958. He entered a plea of not guilty, and the matter was set for trial on June 20, 1958.
Petitioner was arrested May 12, 1958, and questioned extensively by police officers. During the questioning portions of a tape-recorded conversation between the purported victim, Judith Ann Kropf, and law enforcement officers were played to him; and petitioner alleges that he has reason to believe his conversation with the law enforcement officers was also recorded.
On May 28, 1958, after receiving a copy of the grand jury transcript, petitioner filed a motion, accompanied by affidavits, requesting the superior court to order the district attorney to produce transcriptions of the conversations which the law enforcement officers had with petitioner, as well as with Judith Ann Kropf.
The trial judge, after reading the affidavits presented by petitioner and the People, denied the motion, and the case is now set for trial.
Petitioner alleges that he does not remember what statements he made to the police officers and that his attorney has told him that in order to prepare his defense properly, it will be necessary for the attorney to know what was said in the conversation between petitioner and the police officers and in the conversation between the purported victim and the officers.
This is the sole question presented: Can petitioner require the prosecution to permit him to hear recordings of (a) his conversation with the police officers, which conversation he claims he does not now remember, and (b) a conversation between the purported victim and the police officers?
Yes. In a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joe Z. v. Superior Court
...Powell, we granted mandate to enable defendant to inspect his statements prior to trial. We reached similar results in Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773, People v. Cartier, 51 Cal.2d 590, 335 P.2d 114, and Cash v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 72, 346 P.2d 407, which cases inv......
-
People v. Brommel, Cr. 1522
...Powell v. Superior Court, 48 Cal.2d 704, 312 P.2d 698; Funk v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.2d 423, 340 P.2d 593; Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 330 P.2d 773; Tupper v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 263, 331 P.2d 977; McCarthy v. Superior Court,162 Cal.App.2d 755, 328 P.2d 819; Cordry v. Supe......
-
Jones v. Superior Court of Nevada County
...People v. Williams, 51 Cal.2d 355, 357-359, 33 P.2d 19; Tupper v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 263, 265, 331 P.2d 977; Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 93, 330 P.2d 773; Mitchell v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 827, 829, 330 P.2d 48; Priestley v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 812, 819, 330 P.2d......
-
People v. Garner
...given by defendant and his codefendant. (Cash v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.2d 72, 75(1), 346 P.2d 407 et seq.; cf. Vance v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 92, 93(1), 330 P.2d 773.) Any inference to the contrary in Schindler v. Superior Court, 161 Cal.App.2d 513, 327 P.2d 68 is The district attorney......
-
Table of cases
...White (2016) 2016 WL 6247147, D068861 Fourth District, Div.1, §11:122.3.4, Appendix E Vance v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1958) 51 Cal.2d 92, §5:61 Vary v. Forrest (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1506, §10:55 Velasquez v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1471, §§1:11.8, 2:11.4 Verdin v.......
-
Discovery
...(PC §1054.1(b); Joe Z. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 3 Cal.3d 797; Vance v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1958) 51 Cal.2d 92; Powell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1957) 48 Cal.2d 704.) Insert the following check-off text after each requested discovery item. The “C......