Pigage

People v. Pigage

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 1359·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 21, 2003G029933California6,389 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

A jury convicted defendant Stephen Walter Pigage of possession of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine (count one) and possession of methamphetamine as a lesser included offense to possession of methamphetamine for sale (count two). The jury also found true allegations defendant served a prior prison term.

Defendant challenges the court’s denial of his Marsden motion and two motions to continue trial for the purposes of (1) further investigation, and (2) to obtain new counsel, and the court’s proceeding with the trial in his absence. He also claims the prosecutor committed multiple instances of misconduct.

We find no basis for a reversal of the judgment. However, Deputy District Attorney Mike Flory’s conduct does warrant public condemnation. Flory’s complete disrespect for the court’s authority, repeated threats to disobey a court order, and subsequent violation of that order, offend our sense of the court’s inherent dignity. We publish this case because neither the prosecutor nor the Attorney General seemed to understand that Flory’s actions constitute attorney misconduct. When the trial court asked Flory why he persisted in…

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.