Defendant's convictions for sex crimes involving his granddaughter were reversed

 

Defendant's convictions for sex crimes involving his granddaughter were reversed, based on the failure of the Sexual Assault Response Team to disclose to the defense a videotape of a medical examination of the victim. On remand, the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, dismissed the information based on outrageous prosecutorial misconduct, following remand, in violation of defendant's due process rights. The state appealed based on california civil jury instructions caci.

 

 

 

The court of appeal held that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. The governmental conduct consisted of the actions of a single deputy district attorney who was no longer trial counsel, and who, following the reversal for a Brady violation, apparently intended to benefit himself in a State Bar investigation by (1) soliciting untruthful declarations from his adversary and the trial judge; (2) making misleading statements to the trial judge and his adversary concerning the discovery of the victim's medical exam; and (3) providing false testimony in the hearing on defendant's motions. Although egregious and a significant insult to the dignity of the judicial system, however, the false testimony occurred in a peripheral hearing and was not shown to have prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. It therefore did not constitute the kind of outrageous governmental conduct that would have violated the Due Process Clause and justified dismissal of the information.

 

 

 

The court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings

 

Plaintiff flagman filed suit to recover for personal injuries he sustained when a truck, owned by defendant smelting corporation and driven by defendant corporate employee, swerved to miss a passenger bus, operated by defendant bus company and driven by defendant bus driver. The Superior Court of Alameda County (California), entered judgment in the flagman's favor against the smelting corporation and its employee. Those two defendants appealed.

 

 

 

The flagman ordered the passenger bus to stop to allow bridge workers to move a piece of equipment. A truck, operated by the smelting the corporation and driven by its employee, approached, swerved to the right, passed the bus, and hit the flagman. The flagman filed suit against the bus company, its bus driver, the smelting corporation, and its employee. The jury returned a verdict in the flagman's favor against the smelting corporation and its employee. The smelting corporation and its employee appealed. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury that the bus driver, in bringing the bus to a stop, was required to leave a clear and unobstructed portion of the highway for the free passage of other vehicles, because the flagman was controlling the traffic at the time of the accident and the bus was bound to follow his orders. The court further found that the damages awarded were not excessive and that, considering that the flagman was directing traffic at the time of the accident, it could not be said that, by standing in the middle of the north lane of traffic, he was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

 

 

 

The court affirmed the judgment.