People v. Superior Court

When, if ever, does a prosecutor’s advocacy of third party interests in the course of a criminal discovery dispute rise to the level of a conflict of interest justifying recusal? Here, the trial court concluded that a prosecutor who advocates a position of benefit to a third party in a discovery dispute effectively assumes representation of that party and thus has a conflict supporting recusal.

In two companion cases issued today, we reaffirm that the standard of review for assessing a trial court determination concerning prosecutorial recusal is abuse of discretion. (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711-713 [ 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 , 183 P.3d 579 ]; Hollywood v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 721, 727-729 [ 76 Cal. Rptr.3d 264 , 182 P.3d 590 ].) This case demonstrates that that standard should not be interpreted as insulating trial court recusal orders from meaningful appellate review. Where the trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, as it does here, the trial court abuses its discretion. As the Court of Appeal affirmed the recusal order, we reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

On December 27, 2005, minor Humberto S. was charged in a…