People v. Municipal Court (Henry)

Good Law
159 Cal. Rptr. 639·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2313·98 Cal. App. 3d 690
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 1979Civ. 18528California706 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paras, J.

Real party in interest Vernal Henry is charged in municipal court with nine counts of misdemeanor vandalism. Among his pretrial motions was one to recuse the Sacramento County District Attorney’s office. Henry argued that recusal was necessary because a deputy district attorney was the victim of a similar incident and a possible trial witness, and because a former deputy district attorney was also listed as a vandalism victim in the police investigation reports. Neither the present nor the former deputy was a named victim in any count of the complaint.

Henry’s motion to recuse was denied by the municipal court. He petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, contending that the motion should have been granted because under the circumstances the prosecution’s office could not be impartial or maintain the appearance of impartiality. The superior court issued the writ and ordered the municipal court to vacate its denial of the motion. The People then petitioned this court for an order staying the trial and for a writ of prohibition and/or mandate to restrain the municipal court from complying with the superior court’s order.

We stayed further proceedings in the…

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.