People v. Superior Court

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 353·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 299·2006 Daily Journal DAR 2694·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1931
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2006B185861California7,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Based on the particular facts of this case, we hold writ review is not available to the prosecution to challenge the trial court’s denial of its motion for a Kelly-Fry e hearing on the admissibility of certain scientific evidence proposed by the defense. The trial court held a hearing on the issue whether a Kelly-Frye hearing was required, considered conflicting evidence on that issue, and ruled. At worst, the trial court erred in its evaluation of the evidence and therefore reached an erroneous decision. But this specie of error does not constitute an act “in excess of the court’s jurisdiction” and thus is not one of those exceptional situations in which the prosecution is permitted writ review.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

In June 2003, Fernando F. Maldonado was charged with, among other offenses, forcible rape, oral copulation and sodomy while acting in concert with other perpetrators in a 101-count indictment based on crimes that allegedly occurred in February 1991. Early in 2004, Maldonado hired National Medical Services (NMS), a private laboratory, to test samples from oral, vaginal and rectal swabs as well as blood samples collected from the two victims in 1991.…

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.