| |
People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) , Cal.4th
[No. S149123. May. 12, 2008.]
THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; HUMBERTO S., Real Party in Interest.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. TJ15419, Mark R. Frazin, Juvenile Court Referee, Michael Nash, Judge.)
(The Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Div. Seven, No. B193386, 145 Cal.App.4th 32.)
(Opinion by Werdegar, J., expressing the unanimous view of the court.)
OPINION
WERDEGAR, J.-
When, if ever, does a prosecutor's advocacy of third party interests in the course of a criminal discovery dispute rise to the level of a conflict of interest justifying recusal? Here, the trial court concluded that a prosecutor who advocates a position of benefit to a third party in a discovery dispute effectively assumes representation of that party and thus has a conflict supporting recusal.
In two companion cases issued today, we reaffirm that the standard of review for assessing a trial court determination concerning prosecutorial recusal is abuse of discretion. (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (May 12, 2008, S148207) __ Cal.4th ___, ___ [pp. 5-8]; Hollywood v. Superior Court (May 12, 2008, S147954) __ Cal.4th ___, ___ [pp. 6-8].) This case demonstrates that that standard should not be interpreted as insulating trial court recusal orders from meaningful appellate {Slip Opn. Page 2} review. Where the trial court's decision rests on an error of law, as it does here, the trial court abuses its discretion. As the Court of Appeal affirmed the recusal order, we reverse.
|
|
 |
Los Angeles DUI Attorney & Violent Crime Lawyer
Los Angeles Employment Attorney
Site Map
The information on this California Criminal Defense Attorneys / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
All case summaries are from public records and not associated with Dr. DUI or California Legal Team.
|
|
