P. v. Superior Court
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real party in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Penal Code section 995a, subdivision (b), authorizes the trial court to remand a matter to the magistrate for the correction of “minor errors of omission†if it can be “expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence.†In our view, the omission here—the identification of defendant as the perpetrator shown in the video—should be so characterized. Although it is true that this identification goes to the heart of the People’s case, this is not dispositive. (See Caple v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 594.) If the testifying officer had used the word “defendant†instead of “suspect†when describing the video, the People’s case would have been complete. A single question on remand will be sufficient to correct the omission. (Cf. Garcia v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 803.)
Comments on P. v. Superior Court