Petrisca

People v. Petrisca

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 189·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 464·2006 D.A.R. 3847·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3847·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 182
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2006B188294California3,669 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

INTRODUCTION

George Daniel Petrisca, who stands charged with murder and other felonies in connection with driving his vehicle at excessive speeds on the wrong side of the road, successfully moved to recuse the entire office of the District Attorney of Los Angeles County (DA) from prosecuting the case again him. He based his motion on the fact that one of the deceased victim’s sons, Jeffrey Semow, was a deputy district attorney (DDA) of Los Angeles. Petrisca argued this relationship created a conflict of interest for the DA and made it unlikely he would receive a fair trial. The trial court ordered the recusal pursuant to Penal Code section 1424 after finding a prosecutor in the DA’s office would “feel extra pressure” and be “more uncomfortable” than a prosecutor in another agency. We reverse the recusal because the court applied the wrong legal standard in making its decision and no substantial evidence supports it.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The evidence at Petrisca’s preliminary hearing shows that on December 11, 2004, Petrisca drove his vehicle at high speeds through two red lights, darting in and out of traffic on the wrong side of the road. Petrisca almost…

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.