Zamloch v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SF

California Court of Appeal Aug 23, 1951 No. Civ. 14699Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court properly granted a writ of mandate to dismiss misdemeanor charges because the prosecution failed to show legal cause for a continuance, thereby violating the defendants' constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Issues

Whether the prosecution's desire to avoid disclosing evidence or to prevent potential double jeopardy claims constitutes legal cause for a continuance in municipal court.
Whether the constitutional right to a speedy trial applies to municipal court proceedings despite the inapplicability of Penal Code section 1382.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The constitutional guarantee is not to be thus frittered away at the whim, caprice, or convenience of the prosecutor.”

“The constitutional guarantee is not to be abrogated simply because the prosecutor desires to jockey for position or to gain a technical legal advantage.”

“The burden rested on the prosecution to show good cause in support of the motion. The prosecution failed to make such a showing.”

PETERS, P. J.

This appeal is taken from an order of the superior court ordering the municipal court to dismiss misdemeanor charges against Marion Cowan and Jennifer Wilson.

Cowan, on September 28, 1949, was charged by complaint with a violation of section 315 of the Penal Code, that is,

[262]

keeping a house of ill-fame, a misdemeanor. On the same date, Wilson was charged with a violation of section 220 of the Municipal Police Code, that is, with being an inmate of a house of prostitution, a misdemeanor. On December 1, 1949, Wilson was further charged with a violation of section 240 of the Municipal Police Code, that is, agreeing to commit indecent acts, a misdemeanor. Defendants pleaded not guilty.

There were a series of continuances to all of which defendants agreed up to January 16, 1950. On that date the causes came on for hearing. Defendants waived a jury trial, and the trial date was set for January 25, 1950.

On January 25, 1950, defendants appeared and answered ready for trial. The deputy district attorney requested a continuance to a date beyond February 6, 1950, on the sole ground that there was pending a felony complaint against Cowan, involving the same transaction, and the district attorney did not desire to disclose his witnesses and their testimony in the misdemeanor proceedings. That, admittedly, is not a valid legal ground for a continuance. The attorney for the defendants objected to the continuance, and demanded that the trials proceed. The district attorney refused to go to trial. Thereupon, the attorney for defendants moved to dismiss all charges. This motion was based upon the provisions of section 1382 of the Penal Code, and upon the constitutional guarantee of a prompt and speedy trial. It should be here mentioned that section 1382 does not apply to proceedings in the municipal court.

(People

Molinari,

23 Cal.App.2d Supp. 761 [67 P.2d 767];

Harris

Zamloch v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF CITY AND COUNTY OF SF

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief