People v. Sean R.

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 1013·214 Cal. App. 3d 662·262 Cal. Rptr. 884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 1989No. A043640California1,794 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Racanelli, J.

In this appeal, the sole question presented is whether the trial court had authority to order defense counsel to pay the prosecution’s witness fees and expenses incurred upon a continuance granted to the defense. For the reasons we explain, we will conclude the order was unauthorized and void.

Background

This appeal arises against the following procedural background: In January 1988, a petition was filed in the juvenile court charging the fourteen-year-old minor defendant with the commission of three criminal offenses involving an alleged sexual molestation of a five-month-old infant. The minor was represented by the public defender. After three continuances, the matter was set for a jurisdictional hearing on April 18, 1988. On that day, defense counsel requested a further continuance on the ground that he was unprepared. The prosecution objected, noting that the examining physician had been subpoenaed “at considerable inconvenience.”

*664 The trial court granted the request for continuance but also ordered the public defender’s office to pay the expert witness fees for the physician upon his return to court. The court added that “if there is [s/c] any additional…

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.