Bigelow

People v. Bigelow

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 316·200 Cal. App. 3d 59·245 Cal. Rptr. 771
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 1988No. A037239California534 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Elkington, J.

The People have appealed from an order dismissing an information charging defendant Wendy Bigelow with assault with a deadly weapon, i.e., a knife. Defendant had moved for pretrial discovery of prior convictions and medical information, known to the People or in their possession, of witnesses before they testified, declaring that she would rely on the principle of self-defense. The motion was granted and the requested discovery order was made by the superior court. The People refused *61 to comply with the discovery order, and for that reason the district attorney stated, “he is not ready to proceed.” On motion of defendant the information was thereupon dismissed.

The People make no contention that defendant was not entitled to the discovery she sought. Instead, as we read their briefs, they insist that the only way such discovery might be accomplished was by “subpoena duces tecum in a criminal case.” We disagree.

A subpoena duces tecum is the “writ,” or “order,” or “process” of the court, by which the trial attendance of a witness with needed documents or other evidence is ordinarily obtained. (Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206, 208 [ 100 P.2d…

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.