Hansel

People v. Hansel

Good Law
1 Cal. 4th 1211·1992 Cal. LEXIS 534·4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888·92 Daily Journal DAR 2716·824 P.2d 694
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1992S020080California4,378 words

Opinion

Opinion

Panelli, J.

When a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence at the preliminary examination is denied and the defendant renews it in the superior court, are the People permitted to recall witnesses only when the defendant presents new evidence at the second hearing, under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i)? We conclude that the People’s right to recall witnesses is not so limited. We also conclude that the statute, so construed, does not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and compulsory process.

I. Facts

Defendants and respondents Vienna Rae Hansel, Kevin Jules Berlin, and Loreen Louise Goetz were charged with various offenses relating to the possession of narcotics. The case arose from a narcotics investigation in Orange County in 1988. Officers, who had a search warrant for defendants’ residence, had been warned that the front door was subject to video surveillance. As a means of approaching the residence undercover, the officer in charge, Christopher Elliott, had earlier instructed another investigator to telephone the house to say that flowers would be delivered that day.

On arriving at the residence, Officer Elliott, who was dressed in plain…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.