People v. Gonzales

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 196·22 Cal. App. 4th 1744·28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 325·94 Daily Journal DAR 2937·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1680
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 1994F018585California5,552 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, J.

address the issue of when the prohibiting of the testimony of a witness in a criminal case is an appropriate sanction for a violation of a discovery obligation. (See Pen. Code, § 1054 et seq.) As we shall explain, we conclude that prohibiting the testimony of a witness is not an appropriate discovery sanction in a criminal case absent a showing of significant prejudice and of willful conduct.

A jury found appellant Heliodoro Salcedo Gonzales guilty of having committed the following crimes on or about February 1, 1992: the kidnapping of Juan Trujano (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a); count 2); the robbery of Trujano (§211; count 3); the kidnapping of Trujano for robbery (§209, subd. (b); count 1); the burglary of a dwelling (§ 459; count 4); the robbery of Hermenegildo Valencia-Campos in that dwelling (§§211, 212.5; count 5); and the receiving of stolen property (§ 496, former subd. 1; count 6). The jury also found appellant guilty of having committed the following crimes on or about January 2, 1992: the robbery of Onais Arroyo (§211; count 7); the robbery of Serafín Garibay (§211; count 8); and the attempted robbery of Ramon Arroyo-Muniz (§§ 664, 211; count 9).

The jury…

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.