Saunders

Saunders v. Superior Court

Good Law
75 Cal. App. 4th 789·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 440
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 23, 1999D032472California4,287 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paul J. Pfingst, District Attorney, Thomas F. McArdle and Anthony Lovett, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Laura Whitcomb Halgren and Angela K. Rosenau, Deputy Attorneys General, as amici curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

NARES, J.

This case involves interpretation of the criminal discovery chapter (Pen. Code, [1] § 1054 et seq.), implemented in 1990 as part of Proposition 115. William Bradford Saunders petitions for a writ of mandate after the court imposed $500 in sanctions against him for the failure to comply with its order to provide the prosecution with the reports of designated expert witnesses by a certain date during trial. We conclude sanctions may be imposed under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 for the violation of a valid criminal discovery order, the order here was valid and the sanctions imposed were within the court's discretion. The court, however, erred by directing Saunders to pay the sanctions to a charity of his choice and by failing to issue a written order; insofar as those issues are…

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.