Bridgeforth

Bridgeforth v. Superior Court

Good Law
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 528·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 226·214 Cal. App. 4th 1074·2013 WL 1191181
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 2013No. B244661California5,697 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mallano, J.

Petitioner George Elex Bridgeforth, Jr., is charged with four offenses, including attempted murder and murder, with a special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while Bridgeforth was *1077 engaged in the commission of a robbery. The trial court denied Bridgeforth’s nonstatutory motion to dismiss the information, which was based upon the theory that the prosecutor’s failure to disclose, prior to the preliminary hearing, photographs of the attempted murder victim’s truck denied him the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to effective assistance of counsel. Bridgeforth sought a writ of mandate on the theory that the delay in disclosure violated due process. We conclude that the criminal discovery statutes did not bar Bridgeforth’s motion, and due process requires the prosecution to disclose, prior to the preliminary hearing, evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the defense and material to the probable cause determination to be made at the preliminary hearing. Nevertheless, the photographs of the attempted murder victim’s truck were not favorable to the defense. Accordingly, we deny Bridgeforth’s petition for a writ…

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.