Criminal,
Constitutional Law,
California Supreme Court
Dec. 6, 2019
Secret recording OK in criminal evidence, state high court says
“The California Supreme Court has now made it clear that this exclusionary provision did not survive Proposition 8,” said appellate attorney Verna J. Wefald, whose client lost the appeal. “As far as the Legislature is concerned, the ball is in their court.”
A transcript of a secretly-recorded conversation was properly admitted into evidence in a criminal case, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday.
The court ruled against Alejandro Guzman, convicted of lewd and lascivious acts against two girls under 13. It affirmed a decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeal that the use of the recording was legal under the terms of a 1982 voter initiative, Proposition 8.
Or access this article for $45
Already a subscriber?
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Criminal Law and Procedure
People v. Guzman
Penal Code Section 632(d)'s exclusionary remedy was superseded by Proposition 8 and since reenactments of Section 632(d) were merely technical, they were insufficient to revive the exclus...
Real Property
Scher v. Burke
Civil Code Section 1009 preclude both recreational and non-recreational public use of non-coastal property from ripening into an implied dedication of a public road.
