Eversole

Eversole v. Superior Court

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 3d 188·195 Cal. Rptr. 816·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2297·9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2436
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 1983AO21778California5,059 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Statement of the Case

Petitioner Robert Henry Eversole, Jr. faces trial on three counts of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (2)), three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code, § 261.5), one count of oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)) and one count of false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236). Several prior convictions are also alleged. Petitioner contends that his commitment was unlawful within the meaning of Penal Code section 995 on the grounds that the magistrate’s closing of the preliminary hearing during the testimony of a 14-year-old victim of the alleged sexual assaults violated petitioner’s right to a public preliminary examination. Specifically, he contends that there was an insufficient showing that “testimony before the general public would threaten serious psychological harm to the witness . . .’’as required by section 868.7. After the superior court denied petitioner’s 995 motion we issued the alternative writ to review this contention (see, e.g. People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 851 , 612 P.2d 941 ]; Ortega v. Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 244 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 297 ]; and In re Wagner (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d…

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.