![]() ![]() The issues of policy are of course for the Legislature, which only two years ago extended the bar of section 1387 to felonies as well as misdemeanors. in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed." The issue here is whether, within the meaning of those 13 words, each magistrate was a "court" when, during the preliminary examinations on October 14 and December 16, 1975, the decision was made to dismiss the action against defendant. In chapter 8 the only words that could have authorized the magistrates' dismissals in this case ("pursuant to this chapter") are these in section 1385: "The court may. In that statute, "this chapter" means chapter 8 of title 10 of part 2 of the Penal Code ("Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise"). dismissal of an action pursuant to this chapter is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense if it is a felony and the action has been previously dismissed pursuant to this chapter." Defendant argues that the dismissal was justified because, at a first preliminary examination on October 14 and a second on December 16, 1975, the magistrates had dismissed prosecutions of him for the same offense. The People appeal from the trial court's dismissal of an indictment dated May 5, 1976, charging that defendant committed a felony. Mason, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Respondent. Jeffers, Chief Assistant State Public Defender, Michael G. Michael Rotsten and Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Clifton R. ![]() Gerry, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Separate dissenting opinion by Mosk, J., with Bird, C. Clark, J., concurred in the judgment and opinion of the court, excepting footnote No. (Opinion by Newman, J., with Richardson and Manuel, JJ., concurring. GEROLD JOSEPH PETERS, Defendant and Respondent ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |